Hofstra University School of Law,
Hofstra Labor Law Journal, Editor-in-Chief, 1988-1989
State University of New York at Stony Brook,
B.A., Liberal Arts, 1986
Missouri USDC, Eastern District
Missouri USDC, Western District
Illinois USDC, Southern District
Illinois USDC, Central District
Illinois USDC, Northern District
Wisconsin USDC, Eastern District
US Ct Appeals, 7th Circuit (Covers IL, IN, WI)
US Ct Appeals, 8th Circuit (Covers AR, IA, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD)
US Supreme Ct
American Bar Association (ABA)
Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis
Defense Research Institute (DRI)
Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel
The Missouri Bar
Illinois State Bar Association
New York Bar Association
Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Chicago
Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. (PLAC)
Amada North America, Inc.
American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
American Water Works Company, Inc.
Archimica Group Holdings, B.V.
Commercial Metals Company
Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A.
Illinois-American Water Company
Laclede Gas Company
Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., LLC
Missouri-American Water Company
Suzuki Motor of America, Inc.
TK Holdings, Inc.
Yamaha Motor Company, Ltd.
Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.
Thompson Coburn LLP
Justice James A. Gowan, New York State Supreme Court
Judicial Intern, Summer 1987
Carl has represented corporations in high-stakes litigation on a regional and national basis for over 30 years.
He chairs Thompson Coburn's Product Liability Practice and co-chairs its Tort Litigation Practice Group. Carl has served as lead counsel on numerous product cases involving a variety of vehicles, watercrafts, power tools and other consumer products. As class action counsel, he has represented companies in various jurisdictions. Carl also has extensive commercial litigation experience, including representing utility companies on a variety of issues in state and federal courts.
Carl has defended numerous manufacturers facing product liability claims, including class actions, over alleged product defects. He frequently works with engineering, medical and other technical experts in different fields to develop effective company defenses, and has handled claims involving recreational products (ATVs, motorcycles, personal watercraft), automotive, seatbelts, fitness equipment, ladders, band saws, electric screwdrivers and press brakes. He has represented companies in pharmaceutical and medical device litigation.
Whatever the product, Carl works collaboratively with the client to understand every aspect of product design, aggressively investigate alleged defects and provide a strong, purposeful defense. Carl has also counseled manufacturers and sellers about conducting potential recalls and assisted clients in both developing an effective recall strategy and working with the appropriate governmental agencies to implement that strategy.
Carl's litigation philosophy includes communicating and partnering with the client to achieve the client's long-term goals efficiently and effectively. He has tried cases to verdict in federal and state courts, advocated for clients before state and federal appellate courts and represented them in mediations and settlements.
Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting the defendants' motion to exclude plaintiff's mechanical engineering expert and motion for summary judgment arising out of a claimed defective ATV design.
United States Federal District Court granted defendant's motion to exclude plaintiff's mechanical engineering expert and motion for summary judgment arising out of a claimed defective ATV design.
Eighth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss a Section 1983 constitutional action arising out of, among other things, defendant's continued demands for plaintiff to move its facilities at plaintiff's expense.
United States Federal District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's nationwide class action lawsuit over odometers in Vulcan motorcycles.
Missouri Supreme Court 2011 and 2013; Listed by Missouri Lawyers Weekly on July 8, 2013 as one of the Missouri Supreme Court's Major Opinions for the first half of 2013; successfully defending Laclede's property rights concerning continued demands by plaintiff to move Laclede's facilities at Laclede's expenses.
Defense verdict in a wrongful death action arising out of claims of a defective personal watercraft design; claimed economic damages by plaintiffs exceeded $200 million.
Eighth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals affirmed, among other things, District Court's dismissal of claims against defendants Southwest Securities and David Glatstein alleging conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent omission, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and promissory estoppel.
Defense verdict in a wrongful death action, arising out of claims of a defective personal watercraft design.
Defense verdict arising out whether defendant was liable under the theory of respondent superior when one its employee was involved in an automobile accident on his way to a physical being paid for by his employer, the defendant.
United States Federal District Court granted defendant's motion to exclude plaintiff's mechanical engineering expert and motion for summary judgment arising out of claims of a defective press brake design.
Eighth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals affirmed District Court's granting defendant's motion to exclude plaintiff's mechanical engineering expert and motion for summary judgment arising out of claims of a defective press brake design.
Co-Presenter of “Frenemies: Manufacturers and Dealers: Partnering for Successful Defense of a Product Liability Claim”
DRI Product Liability Conference in Nashville, Tennessee August 2021
Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you (an ‘engagement letter’).
By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and, further, even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you. Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.