Product liability laws are designed to hold businesses accountable for the harm they cause in designing, manufacturing and distributing into the stream of commerce unreasonably dangerous and defective products. Product liability lawsuits serve to compensate families for deaths and injuries, but they can accomplish much more when well prosecuted by skilled attorneys. In the public interest, they can uncover and publicize the truth about whether a product is unreasonably dangerous and defective. They also serve to encourage businesses to create and distribute safer products and thus help reduce the number of serious injuries and deaths caused by the same or similar products.

SETTLEMENT: Defective Tram. Scott Sheftall obtained a $2 million settlement for a man who suffered a back injury and a consequent, rare psychiatric illness. Mr. Sheftall's client was injured aboard an airport tram when it came to a sudden stop due to a system malfunction.

SETTLEMENT: Defective Medical Device/Medical Malpractice. Scott Sheftall negotiated a total settlement of $1.26 million with a defendant doctor from St. Petersburg, Florida, and a medical device manufacturer. The unnecessary implantation of the defective medical device left the firm's client in Ocala, Florida, with painful, permanent impairments. The case settled before trial.

SETTLEMENT: Jeep Rollover/Wrongful Death. In the Taylor case, Scott Sheftall obtained a confidential settlement of $500,000. The decedent's CJ-5 rolled over after becoming unstable in an obstacle avoidance maneuver, killing the driver.

SETTLEMENT: Defective Medical Device/Medical Malpractice. On behalf of one of the firm's clients, Scott Sheftall settled a product liability claim against a medical device manufacturer and a medical malpractice claim against a north Florida neurosurgeon for $450,000.

SETTLEMENT: Lack of Guard on Conveyer System. Scott Sheftall achieved a $260,000 settlement during trial in Gainesville, Florida, in Miller v. Acrowood Corporation. Mr. Sheftall represented a worker whose arm and shoulder were injured while cleaning tar from rollers on a conveyer system which was attached to a chipper machine. Defendant claimed that the roller was not part of its product. Mr. Sheftall established that the injury occurred at the interface between the defendant's product and the conveyer system, and that defendant had a duty to place guards over all "nip points," which were located at the interface between the two machines. Mr. Sheftall also argued at trial that the defendant placed a defective product on the market because it did not include adequate maintenance instructions with the product.