Defense of Electrical, Civil, and Mechanical Engineering Firms in Negligence or Defective Design Cases
Ryan Wilhelm successfully defended to settlement or verdict a variety of engineering firms in cases involving negligence or defective design.Defended an electrical engineering firm in a lawsuit involving the collapse of a large gantry crane at a lumber facility in South Georgia. The crane collapse caused one death, extensive property damage, and loss of business operations allegedly valued at approximately $20 million. The plaintiff contended that the collapse was caused, in part, by defective electrical engineering upgrades to the crane. All claims against the engineering firm were dismissed after the parties conducted discovery. Defended a civil engineering and land surveying firm in a wrongful death lawsuit involving an accidental drowning in a retention pond. The plaintiffs alleged that the drowning occurred as a result of the alleged negligent design, construction, and maintenance of the pond.• Defended a civil engineering firm in a lawsuit involving water and silt runoff allegedly caused during the development of residential subdivisions. The plaintiff sought to recover damages against the developers, owners, bank, and engineering firm as a result of silt and other sedimentation that allegedly caused sedimentation and other damage to a nearby lake. Defended a civil engineering firm in a wrongful death lawsuit arising from an automobile accident. The accident occurred when the plaintiff lost control of his car shortly after a rainstorm. The plaintiff’s estate contended the engineering firm negligently performed site supervision of a nearby construction project, thereby causing mud and other debris to enter the roadway, allegedly contributing to the accident. Defended a mechanical engineering firm in a personal injury lawsuit involving the release of caustic solution from a pressurized pipe at a detergent manufacturing facility. The plaintiff suffered injuries to his eyes, mouth, and face while he was performing maintenance on a pressurized pipe. The plaintiff contended that the accident was caused, in part, by inadequate engineering safety features on the system.