|
Daniel Lanier's areas of practice include product liability defense, automobile tort, medical malpractice defense, insurance defense, antitrust, and corporate litigation. He has participated as both lead counsel and co-counsel in numerous trials, both jury and non-jury, resulting in defendant's verdicts. Mr. Lanier presently represents Black & Decker Corporation as National Coordinating Counsel for United States power tool litigation and industrial tool litigation. He is also presently representing Niro Inc, as National Coordinating Counsel for product liability and personal injury litigation. Mr. Lanier's antitrust practice has included representation of clients such as Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. and Texaco, Inc. in complex antitrust litigation. Mr. Lanier's present clients include Black & Decker, Niro Inc., The Travelers, Target Corporation, Bon Secours Hospital - Baltimore, Penske Truck Leasing Corporation, Pentair, Inc., Lear Corporation, and The Salvation Army. Prior to joining Miles & Stockbridge, Mr. Lanier served as a law clerk to The Honorable Marvin B. Steinberg (March, 1985 August 1986). Selected Matters Tried and Cases Handled: Chang v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. et al., (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens) (September-October 2006). This was a wrongful death case in which the Estate of Chang M. Chang claimed that Mr. Chang was killed as a result of a defect in the design and warnings of a small angle grinder manufactured by Black & Decker as well as a defect in the warnings of an 8-inch cutting wheel manufactured by Norton Corporation and sold by The Home Depot. Mr. Chang was attempting to grind the end of a pipe with the small angle grinder when the 8-inch wheel that he had attached to the small angle grinder broke apart, striking Mr. Chang in the head. Mr. Chang lived for five days and then died. Mr. Chang’s family and Estate sought in excess of $1,000,000 in damages. We defended the case by arguing that Mr. Chang had misused the angle grinder by removing the guard and by using an inappropriate wheel on the grinder. The grinder was made to use 4 ½-inch wheels, and the Plaintiff attempted to use an 8-inch cutting wheel designed for a circular saw. At the inception of the case, we conducted a Frye hearing regarding the testimony of the Plaintiff’s expert witness, and we were successful in having the Court preclude the Plaintiff’s expert from testifying as to any design defect issues regarding the angle grinder. The case proceeded to trial against Black & Decker and The Home Depot on the Plaintiff’s failure to warn claims. After a three-week jury trial, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s case and entered judgment in favor of both Defendants. Marsh v. Target Corporation, (United States District Court for the District of Maryland) (May 2006). This was a personal injury case in which Sandra Marsh claimed that she sustained a ruptured Achilles tendon as a result of a violation Target Corporation store policy. Specifically, a Target Corporation employee, in violation of store policy, allowed Ms. Marsh to use a flat pallet cart to transport furniture Ms. Marsh had purchased at the store. Ms. Marsh’s mother was pushing the cart to the cash register when the front of the cart contacted Ms. Marsh’s ankle, resulting in a ruptured Achilles tendon. Ms. Marsh claimed $17,000.00 in medical expenses and lost wages, as well as a permanent injury to her ankle. We defended the case by arguing that, even though there was a violation of store policy, this did not amount to negligence and, additionally, that the violation of the store policy was not the cause of her injury. Unfortunately, the jury disagreed and found for Ms. Marsh. The jury awarded her a total of only $20,000.00. Alston v. Bon Secours Hospital Baltimore, Inc., (Circuit Court for Baltimore City) (March April 2006). This was a retrial of a medical malpractice case in which the Plaintiffs (husband and son) alleged that my client, an internal medicine specialist, and a Co-Defendant, a hematology consultant, failed to properly diagnose Donna Alston with a rate blood disorder, resulting in her death. The first trial ended in a mistrial as a result of Plaintiff’s counsel’s remarks during closing arguments. The blood disorder which caused the Plaintiff’s death was treatable if diagnosed, but fatal if not diagnosed. Unfortunately, neither my client nor the hematology consult diagnosed the condition prior to the death. The case was further complicated by the fact that the doctors disagreed whether my client telephoned the Co-Defendant to advise him of deteriorating laboratory results the day prior to the Ms. Alston’s death. After a nine-day jury trial, the jury found in favor of the Plaintiffs and against both Defendants. The jury awarded the Plaintiffs approximately 3.3 million dollars in damages, which was reduced under Maryland statutory cap to approximately 2.3 million dollars. Each Defendant was liable for 50% of the reduced judgment. In talking to the jurors following the trial, the jurors believed that my client telephoned the Co-Defendant to advise him of the laboratory results, but determined that both doctors should have done more to diagnose the decedent’s condition. DeLaVega v. Black Sheep Trucking, et al. (United States District Court for the District of Maryland) (January 2006). This was an automobile accident case in which the Plaintiffs (husband, wife, and two minor children), alleged that my client’s employee, while operating a tractor trailer on I-95 southbound, improperly changed lanes and struck the Plaintiffs’ vehicle, resulting in the Plaintiffs’ vehicle loosing control and rolling over numerous times on the highway. All of the Plaintiffs claimed injury; however, the husband was the most severely injured. His injuries included a fractured pelvis, lacerated bladder, and permanent orthopedic injuries. His medical expenses at the time of trial exceeded $250,000, and he claimed the need for future medical care. We defended the case by arguing that the Plaintiffs, not our driver, caused the accident. Specifically, we argued that the Plaintiffs’ vehicle was overloaded, resulting in the loss of control and further resulting in the Plaintiffs’ vehicle moving from its’ lane of travel into our driver’s lane of travel at which point the Plaintiffs’ vehicle struck the rear of the trailer being driven by our driver. After a three-day jury trial, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict. Alston v. Bon Secours Hospital, et al. (Circuit Court for Baltimore City) (July-August 2005). This was a medical malpractice case in which the Plaintiffs (husband and son) alleged that my client, an internal medicine specialist, and a Co-Defendant, hematology consultant, failed to properly diagnose Donna Alston with a rare blood disorder, resulting in her death. After a nine-day jury trial, the Court declared a mistrial on my Motion after Plaintiffs’ counsel argued during his closing argument that punitive damages should be awarded against the doctors, when no such claim for punitive damages was made. A retrial of the matter is pending. Stanton v. University of Maryland Medical System, et al. (Circuit Court for Baltimore City) (April 2005). This is the retrial of a medical malpractice case that ended in a mistrial. On retrial, the Plaintiff alleged that my clients failed to properly diagnose her as being in preterm labor. The Plaintiff was six months pregnant and presented to the emergency room with contractions. My clients assessed her condition and determined that she was not in preterm labor; thus, the Plaintiff was discharged. One-half hour later, she returned to the emergency room in active labor and, within twenty-four hours, delivered a severely premature baby. The baby was born blind and severely retarded. The Plaintiff alleged that, had a proper diagnosis been made during the Plaintiff’s initial admission, treatment could have been provided to the Plaintiff that would have stopped her labor or delayed delivery of the baby. At trial, we contended that the Plaintiff did not have signs and symptoms of preterm labor during her first admission and, therefore, it was appropriate to discharge her. After a eight-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs in an amount of $6,900,000. The verdict was subsequently reduced in post-trial motions to slightly less than $6,000,000. Stanton v. University of Maryland Medical System, et al. (Circuit Court for Baltimore City) (September-October 2004). This was a medical malpractice case in which the Plaintiff alleged that my clients failed to properly diagnose her as being in preterm labor. The Plaintiff was six months pregnant and presented to the emergency room with contractions. My clients assessed her condition and determined that she was not in preterm labor; thus, the Plaintiff was discharged. One-half hour later, she returned to the emergency room in active labor and, within twenty-four hours, delivered a severely premature baby. The baby was born blind and severely retarded. The Plaintiff alleged that, had a proper diagnosis been made during the Plaintiff’s initial admission, treatment could have been provided to the Plaintiff that would have stopped her labor or delayed delivery of the baby. At trial, we contended that the Plaintiff did not have signs and symptoms of preterm labor during her first admission and, therefore, it was appropriate to discharge her. A retrial of the matter is pending. After a nine-day trial, a mistrial was declared due to the jury being deadlocked three to three. Gibble v. Bon Secours Hospital Baltimore, Inc. (Circuit Court for Baltimore City) (June 2004). This was a personal injury case in which Carol Gibble claimed that she fell off of a loading dock at Bon Secours Hospital. Ms. Gibble claimed that the Bon Secours was negligent because the loading dock did not have stairs or any other means of public access to the dock. The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted to stack milk crates in front of the loading dock to gain access to the top of the loading dock in the course of making her delivery. Ms. Gibble sustained a fracture to her elbow and wrist and ultimately had two surgeries on her wrist. Ms. Gibble claimed that she had daily pain in her wrist and arm as a result of the incident. We were able to obtain a Motion for Judgment at the close of the Plaintiff’s case after the Plaintiff admitted on cross-examination that she was areless and that the accident was the fault of both Bon Secours Hospital and herself. White v. Black & Decker (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana) (June 2004). This was a product liability case in which Kenneth B. White was using a DeWALT pneumatic nailer when a nail from the nailer inadvertently fired, then ricocheted off the work piece and struck the Plaintiff in his eye causing him to lose sight in the eye. The Plaintiff alleged that the pneumatic nailer was defectively designed because it could be operated in the contact trip mode and, further, that the nailer should have been designed such that it could only be operated in the sequential mode. Mr. White incurred in excess of $ 40,000.00 in medical bills. Mr. White also claimed in excess of $ 21,000.00 in lost wages and that he was permanently disabled. Two weeks before the trial was to start, the Court granted our Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the Plaintiff had not met his burden of proof in demonstrating that the risk of the contact trip mode outweighed the utility of using the tool in that mode. The Plaintiff’s attorney, who is from Boston, Massachusetts, and the Plaintiff’s expert witness had teamed up on several other pneumatic nailer cases across the country. Lucas v. Target Corporation (Circuit Court for Prince Georges County, Maryland) (April 2004). This was a personal injury case in which Bashah Lucas claimed that he slipped on Pine-Sol that had spilled in front of a check-out counter at a Target store. Mr. Lucas claimed that he overheard a cashier state following the accident, I told them to clean that up. Mr. Lucas claimed to have injured his back, left shoulder, ankle, hip, and head. Mr. Lucas also claimed that the injury to his left shoulder and head were permanent. He claimed that he suffered from migraine headaches as a result of the fall. He called an orthopedic surgeon and a neurologist as expert witnesses at trial. We were able to obtain a motion for judgment at the close of the Plaintiff’s case due to the Plaintiff’s failure to prove prior notice of the alleged dangerous condition. Merkle, et al. v. Emhart Industries, Inc. (United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania) (October 2002). This was a product liability case in which Timothy Merkle was using a three-roll calender manufactured by Farrel Corporation, a former division of Emhart Industries, Inc., when his hand and arm became entrapped in a nip point between two of the calender rolls. Mr. Merkle’s hand and arm were pulled into the nip point between the two rolls up to his elbow, resulting in a crushing and degloving injury to Mr. Merkle’s hand and arm. Mr. Merkle was required to undergo several surgeries and had incurred in excess of $100,000 in medical bills. Mr. Merkle also claimed in excess of $1,000,000 in lost wages, and he contended that he was permanently and totally disabled. Mr. Merkle contended that the three-roll calender was defective because it lacked a barrier guard at the nip point. After a six-day trial, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict. Jones v. Reichert Jung, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Maryland) (July 2002). This was a product liability case in which Louvinia Jones claimed that she developed a repetitive motion injury due to the defective design of a Frigocut 2800 Microtome manufactured by Reichert Jung, Inc. Mrs. Jones claimed that the machine was defective due to the design of the handle utilized to manually operate the machine to make slide cuts. We were able to obtain a Motion for Summary Judgment after obtaining a ruling from the Court that the Plaintiff’s expert witnesses could not establish that the machine was defectively designed. Barajas v. Standard Knapp, Inc., et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, San Joaquin County, Stockton Branch) (August 2001). This was a product liability case in which Cirila Barajas claims that she was injured due to the defective design and manufacture of a Standard Knapp labeling machine. Mrs. Barajas claimed that the machine was defective due to a lack of a guard on a horizontal rotating shaft, resulting in Mrs. Barajas’ hair becoming entangled on the rotating shaft and further resulting in the removal of Mrs. Barajas’ hair and scalp. The Plaintiff sustained scarring to her scalp and permanent loss of her hair. On the first day of trial, we obtained a favorable settlement, to which each defendant contributed equally. John Suggs v. Niro Inc., et al., (Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland) (June, 2000). This was a product liability case in which Mr. Suggs claimed that he was injured due to the defective design and manufacture of a turntable designed to move pallets of powdered milk from one conveyor ninety degrees to another conveyor. Mr. Suggs contended that the turntable unexpectedly rotated as he was attempting to free a jammed pallet, resulting in a fracture and permanent injury to his ankle. After a five-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Suggs. The Court subsequently granted the Defendants’ Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding The Verdict. The matter is currently on appeal before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. Fekelman, et al. v. Black & Decker, (Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania) (May, 2000). This was a product liability case in which the Eileen Fekelman, the mother of Matthew Fekelman age 7, Dana Fekelman age 17, and James Fekelman age 18, was using a Model U-273 Black & Decker electric lawnmower on August 3, 1995 when she was electrocuted by the lawnmower. Ms. Fekelman was electrocuted because the power cord running from the switch in the handle to the motor had become loose as a result of a missing cord locating strap, resulting in the power cord migrating to a pinch point in the metal flip over handle. In the process of utilizing the mower and using the flip over handle feature, the metal handle cut through the power cord, resulting in the metal handle becoming energized. After a three-day trial, the jury returned a defense verdict. Dale Dukes v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio) (October, 1999). This was a product liability case in which the Plaintiff alleged that he was using a Sears Craftsman version of a Model 1701 Black & Decker miter saw when his left hand inadvertently contacted the blade, resulting in the amputation of his left hand. After a three-day trial, the jury returned a defense verdict. Centennial Insurance Company v. Acton Mobile Industries, Inc., et al. (United States District Court for the District of Maryland) (June, 1999). This was a product liability action in which Plaintiff alleged that an air conditioning unit in one of my client's mobile office trailers caused a fire, resulting in destruction of the office complex utilized by the Plaintiff. The fire marshal originally supported the Plaintiff and opined in his initial report and deposition that the fire started in the HVAC unit attached to one of the trailers. On cross-examination at trial, however, the fire marshal changed his opinion and acknowledged that the fire likely started in wiring that was located in a separate trailer that was not installed by my client. The Court granted our Motion for Judgment at the close of the Plaintiff's evidence. McBurney Law Services, Inc. v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. (Providence, Rhode Island State Court) (January, 1999). This was a product liability action in which the Plaintiff, which was a law firm, alleged that a Black & Decker toaster caused a fire that destroyed the Plaintiff's law office. Two state fire marshals, a local police department arson investigator, and two local fire investigators investigated the fire and concluded that the toaster caused the fire. The Plaintiff also called two outside expert witnesses to opine that the toaster caused the fire. At trial, we were able to show that the investigation conducted by the state and local authorities was not thorough, and we were able to convince the jury that the toaster was not defective and did not cause the fire. The jury returned a defense verdict after a two and one-half-week trial. Weinicke v. Baumfolder Corporation (United States District Court for the District of Maryland) (June, 1998). This was a product liability action in which the Plaintiff alleged that her hair became caught on a rotating shaft of a 1960's vintage paper-drilling machine manufactured by my client. The Plaintiff's hair and part of her scalp had been torn from her body, and she endured in excess of twenty operations in an attempt to correct her deformity. She had significant medical bills as well as emotional damages. We were forced to admit that, under today's standards, the machine would be defective in light of new guarding requirements. After a two-week trial, the jury returned a defense verdict after we demonstrated that the machine was not defective under standards that existed in the 1960's. Cowperthwait v. Mighty-Mite, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court for Kent County, Maryland) (May, 1998). This was a product liability action in which the Plaintiff alleged that a thermal limit switch, which my client manufactured and which was located in a kick space heater in the Plaintiff's home, malfunctioned, resulting in a fire that destroyed the home. After an eight-day trial, the jury returned a defense verdict. Miller v. Domestic Linen Supply Co. (Circuit Court for Baltimore City) (April, 1998). This was a personal injury automobile accident case in which I represented Domestic Linen Supply Co. The Plaintiff alleged that the driver of one of my client's vehicles was negligent in the operation of the vehicle, resulting in an automobile accident with the Plaintiff's vehicle. The Plaintiff sustained significant injuries, including a traumatic brain injury. We obtained a favorable settlement on the third day of trial. Barnett v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. (State Court in Huntsville, Alabama) (March, 1998). This was a product liability action in which the Plaintiff alleged that she was using a Black & Decker miter saw and, during the cutting process, her hand contacted the blade, resulting in the amputation of several fingers. After a two-week trial, the jury returned a defense verdict. Fahey v. Olmo, et al. (Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland) (January, 1998). This was a premises liability case in which the Plaintiff alleged that my clients, who were landscapers, trespassed onto his land and cut down in excess of one hundred trees. We defended the case by arguing that my clients had been given authority from another neighbor to cut the trees. After an eight-day trial, the jury returned a defense verdict in favor of my clients and against the co-defendant neighbor who had given my clients permission to cut the trees. Horstmyer v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri) (June, 1997). This was a product liability case in which the Plaintiff alleged that he was using a Black & Decker miter saw when his hand inadvertently contacted the blade, resulting in the amputation of several fingers. After an eight-day trial, the jury returned a defense verdict. Taborsky v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. (State Court in Tarrant County, Texas) (March, 1997). This was a product liability case in which the Plaintiff alleged that he was using a Black & Decker miter saw when his hand inadvertently contacted the moving blade, resulting in the amputation of his thumb and several fingers. After a two-week trial, the jury awarded the Plaintiff approximately $160,000.00 in damages. While the jury found the product defective, it also found the Plaintiff was 59% at fault. The amount of the jury's award was less than the amount offered in settlement of the case prior to trial. Jones v. Schultze (Circuit Court for Cecil County, Maryland) (June, 1996). This was an automobile accident case in which we stipulated to liability. After a four-day trial, the jury returned a Plaintiff's verdict for slightly more than half of the amount offered in settlement pre-trial. Crider v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) (March, 1995). This was a product liability action in which the Plaintiff alleged that he was using a Black & Decker miter saw when his hand contacted the moving blade, resulting in the amputation of a portion of his hand and several fingers. After a two-week trial, the jury returned a Plaintiff's verdict in the amount of approximately $120,000.00, which was considered a compromised verdict in light of the injuries. Redfearn v. Moon (United States District Court for the District of Maryland) (February, 1992). This was a medical malpractice action in which the Plaintiff alleged that my client negligently performed abdominal surgery, resulting in numerous medical complications and medical bills in excess of $400,000.00. After a seven-day trial, the jury returned a defense verdict. Tompkins v. M. Nelson Barnes & Sons, Inc. (Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland) (February, 1992). This was an appeal from the Worker's Compensation Commission. After a one-week trial, the jury returned a defense verdict. Gladysz v. International Hotel (Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland) (September, 1991). This was an appeal from the Worker's Compensation Commission. After a one-week trial, the jury returned a defense verdict. Black & Decker, Inc. v. Hoover Service Center (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut) (September-October, 1990). Represented Black & Decker in a patent/antitrust action as to monopolization claims asserted by Hoover against Black & Decker in connection with the sale and marketing of Black & Decker's Dustbuster. After a multi-week trial on a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Court ruled in favor of Black & Decker on all antitrust issues. Whitner v. American Red Cross (United States District Court for the District of Maryland) (July 1990). This was a negligence case against the Red Cross in which the Plaintiff, who was a repeat blood donor, alleged that a phlebotomy procedure was improperly performed by a Red Cross employee, resulting in the Plaintiff developing reflex sympathetic dystrophy in her arm. After a one-week trial, the jury returned a defense verdict. Palovich v. John Sharrett, M.D. (Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland) (December 1989). This was a medical malpractice case in which the Plaintiff alleged that my client improperly performed a lumbar myelogram, resulting in the Plaintiff developing arachnoiditis and permanent back pain. After a one-week trial, the jury returned a defense verdict. REPORTED CASES Newman v. Motorola, Inc., 218 F.Supp.2d 769 (D.Md. 2002) Jones v. Reichert Jung, Inc., 211 F.Supp.2d 661 (D.Md. 2002) Horstmyer v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., 151 Fed. 3rd 765 (8th Cir. 1998) Crider v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., U.S.Dist. LEXIS 8468 (1995) Joy Technologies v. Flakt, Inc., 901 F.Supp. 180 (D.Del. 1995) Dyer v. Robinson, 853 F.Supp. 169 (D.Md. 1994) Maryland Casualty Co. v. Lorkovic, 100 Md. App. 333, 641 A.2d 924 (1994) Meda v. Brown, 318 Md. 418, 569 A.2d 202 (1990) Farwell v. Chong Un, 902 F.2d 282 (4th Cir. 1990) Black & Decker, Inc. v. Hoover Service Center, 886 F.2d 1285 (Fed.Cir. 1989) Milton Summers, Inc. v. Equitable Bank, N.A., 76 Md. App. 13, 543 A.2d 377 (1988) Practice Areas: Commercial & Business Litigation Insurance Recovery & Risk Management Products Liability CPSC & Other Regulatory Compliance Fire & Electrical Injury Litigation Industrial Machinery Litigation Medical Malpractice, Medical Products & Health Care Power Tools Litigation Bar Admissions/Court Admissions:Maryland Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit United States District Court for the District of Columbia United States District Court for the District of Maryland Education:University of Baltimore School of Law, J.D. 1985. Towson State University, B.S., B.A. (Finance) 1981. Affiliations, Associations and Special Achievements: American Bar Association American College of Trial Lawyers Baltimore City Bar Association Baltimore Magazine: Listed as a Maryland Super Lawyer (2008) Defense Research Institute International Association of Defense Counsel Maryland Association of Defense Trial Counsel: (October 1993 present); Chairman of Product Liability Sub-Committee; Former Member of Executive Committee Maryland State Bar Association Products Liability Advisory Council Publications: Business Tort Law Desk Reference A Fifty-State Compendium, Maryland Chapter (2007-2008). Law Review Comment: Case Note: Joint Tort-Feasors - Contribution -Release - Joint Tort-Feasor's Payment For Pro Rata Release In Excess Of Its Pro Rata Share Operated To Satisfy Injured Party's Judgment Entered Against Non-Settling Joint Tort-Feasor. 15 U. Balt. L. Rev. 330 (1986). Product Liability Desk Reference - A Fifty-State Compendium Maryland Chapter (1998-2007). What the Jury Doesn’t Know Won’t Hurt You - Other Accident Evidence,Mealy’s Product Liability and Risk (March 14, 2002). Speaking Engagements: Attacking the Plaintiff's Expert, DRI Products Liability Conference Hand and Power Tool Breakout Group (December 1998). Evidentiary Issues Relating to Restatement (Third), DRI Products Liability Conference (December 1999). Evidentiary Issues Relating to SawStop Technology for Power Saws, DRI Products Liability Conference (December 2000). Evidentiary Issues Relating to the Admissibility of Other Claims and Suits, DRI Products Liability Conference (December 2001). Product Liability Law and Other Accident Evidence, National Association of Manufacturers Product Liability Seminar (March 2003). Products Liability Law and Other Accident Evidence, National Association of Manufacturers Products Liability Seminar (June 2003). Products Liability Law, Web, Sling and Tie Down Association (2000). Product Warnings, National Association of Manufacturers Products Liability Seminar (September 2003). |
