|
Mr. Whitefield's national trial practice is focused on the defense of product manufacturers, business entities, and insurers.
Experience
Mr. Whitefield has tried and co-tried high exposure product liability cases throughout the U.S.
Mr. Whitefield is one of the most knowledgeable lawyers in the country regarding air bag technology and regulation. He serves as national and regional air bag counsel for automotive manufacturers, and represents numerous automotive manufacturers and their suppliers.
Mr. Whitefield has experience defending product liability cases involving motor vehicles, lift trucks, power tools, home appliances, and other consumer products. He has considerable experience preparing and presenting company witnesses for deposition and trial, including U.S., Japanese and Korean witnesses.
Mr. Whitefield provides product liability avoidance advice, including design review and development of warnings, manuals and brochures.
Mr. Whitefield also has experience handling unfair trade practice, commercial and insurance litigation.
Mr. Whitefield started his legal career with Dykema in 1985, served on the GM Legal Staff between 1988 and 1993, and then returned to private practice representing business entities in product liability and commercial litigation. He re-joined Dykema Gossett as a Member in its Los Angeles office in 2003.
Significant Decisions
Mines v. Honda, 305 A.D.2d 271 (2003), (Court held sanction of dismissal was proper where plaintiff failed to comply with discovery orders).
Free v. General Motors, 2003 Wash. App. LEXIS 617 (2003), (Court held jury received correct instruction on test for defect that focused on objective rather than subjective consumer expectation test).
McCabe v. Honda, 100 Cal.App.4th 1111 (2002), (Court held summary judgment is improper if the product does not meet the ordinary consumer’s safety assumptions under the facts and circumstances of the case).
Pruitt v. General Motors, 72 Cal.App.4th 1480 (1999), (Court held deployment of an air bag is not part of everyday experience and so the consumer expectation test for defect should not apply).
| 