Joel Dewey is a trial lawyer and appellate advocate who has successfully handled a wide array of cases for major corporations across the country. His practice focuses on the preparation, trial, and appeal of complex civil litigation cases, many of which involve complicated technological issues, including class actions, product liability cases, intellectual property cases, and many other types of technology-related cases.

Mr. Dewey has appeared as lead trial counsel in major jury trials in numerous state and federal courts nationwide and has argued appeals in various federal circuits and state appellate courts. He also has appeared as lead counsel for manufacturers in nationwide class actions in state and federal courts. He represents numerous Fortune 500 and international corporations, such as General Motors, Danaher Corporation, Toyota, and Nissan, and has been selected as national and regional trial counsel for many of these clients.

His practice includes the counseling of technology companies and product manufacturers in the areas of risk management, analysis and prevention. He has lectured and written articles on litigation and technology related issues for industry groups, clients, ABA, and state and local bar associations.

He is certified as a mediator by the Harvard School Program of Instruction for Lawyers. He also has served as a mediator for the Baltimore City Mediation Program.

Mr. Dewey is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He is listed in Who’s Who in American Law and has been named a Maryland Super Lawyer.

His representative matters include:

• Representation of Mitsubishi Motors North America in class action on behalf of all United States purchases of certain 1997-2002 Mitsubishi vehicles, alleging violation of consumer protection statutes and breach of warranty due to misrepresentation of the performance of wheel rims on those vehicles. Obtained decision in July 2003 denying class certification.
• Representation of Land Rover North America, Inc. and Rover Group in class action on behalf of all United States purchasers of Land Rover vehicles sold in the United States between 1987-1999, alleging negligent misrepresentation of the corrosion characteristics of these vehicles and Maryland Consumer Protection Act violations. Obtained decision in August 1999 denying class certification; after this decision, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the entire action.
• Representation of Toyota in a nationwide class action brought against six automotive manufacturers alleging that all vehicles with airbags were dangerously defective because the airbags are designed to deploy with sufficient speed and force to seriously injure or kill front seat occupants, especially women, children, the elderly, and short adults. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss prior to the class certification hearing, holding that the warnings issued by the defendants combined with the extensive publicity concerning the risks of airbag injuries placed plaintiffs on notice as to the potential for airbag injuries, and thus plaintiffs claims were proscripted under Louisiana law. In re Air Bag Products Liability Litigation, 7 F. Supp.2d 792 (E.D.La.1998).
• Representation of General Motors as one of its National Acceleration Counsel coordinating nationwide defense of "sudden acceleration" cases. Responsible for certain classes of cases in eastern half of United States and in California. This program included overall case management, development of strategies for groups of cases, coordination of all discovery both with other national counsel and local counsel in each case, developing defense witnesses, coordinating information and depositions of key plaintiff's experts, and trial responsibility.
• Representation of Danaher Corporation, Easco Hand Tools, as national counsel responsible for monitoring all litigation nationwide where exposure potential exceeds $250,000 and in cases which involve certain types of products and allegations. This assignment includes individual case management, development of strategies for particular classes of cases, coordination of discovery responses, plant interviews with potential defense witnesses, and selected trial responsibility.
• Representation of Toyota as Regional Airbag Counsel responsible for handling all airbag litigation in the Middle Atlantic states and New York. This program includes all levels of potential verdict exposure, individual case management, coordination with other regional counsel on discovery, development of trial exhibits and strategy for claims involving allegations of "overpowered airbags," and trial responsibility.
• Representation of Nissan as Regional Airbag Counsel responsible for handling certain classes of airbag litigation in Middle Atlantic states. This program includes all levels of potential verdict exposure, individual case management, coordination with other regional counsel on discovery, development of trial exhibits and strategy for claims involving allegations of "overpowered airbags", and trial responsibility.
• Representation of Toyota as one of its National Rollover Counsel coordinating defenses of cases alleging that certain types of Toyota vehicles have design characteristics which render them unstable and prone to roll over in accidents. Geographic responsibility includes primarily the Eastern United States and California. Responsibilities include participation in developing overall strategies for defense, working with outside experts on overall defenses, individual case management, coordination with discovery counsel on discovery responses, and trial.

Mr. Dewey’s first-chair trials include:

• Representation of Mitsubishi in a class action non-jury evidentiary hearing in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas. Plaintiffs filed a class action on behalf of all United State purchasers of certain Mitsubishi vehicles sold in the United States between 1997-2002 alleging misrepresentation of the performance characteristics of the wheels on those vehicles and seeking recovery under all 50 states' consumer protection statutes and warranty laws. The damages sought were the replacement cost of every wheel on those vehicles, which was estimated at over $1 billion. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
• Representation of Toyota in a five-week jury trial in the Superior Court for Santa Barbara County, California, during April-May 2001. Plaintiffs claimed that a stability and handling defect in their Toyota SUV caused it to leave the roadway. Plaintiffs also had sued the State of California claiming there should have been a guardrail at the accident site and settled with the state shortly before trial for $3.35 million. The two plaintiffs sustained paraplegic and brain-damage injuries, respectively, and the economic damages proved at trial were $12.7 million. The jury returned a verdict for Toyota.
• Representation of Yokohama Tire in a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland, in October 2000. Plaintiffs claimed that manufacturing and design defects caused the tire tread on their truck to separate and result in loss of control, causing the three plaintiffs to suffer death, brain injury and spleen loss, respectively. The conduct of the trial was overshadowed by the Ford/Firestone tire tread separation dispute which started August 6, 2000, and the NHTSA and Congressional investigations, which were ongoing during the trial. The case settled after three trial days.
• Representation of Land Rover North America and Rover Group in a class action non-jury evidentiary hearing in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland in July 1999. Plaintiffs filed a class action on behalf of all United States purchasers of Land Rover vehicles sold in the United States between 1987-1999 alleging negligent misrepresentation of the corrosion characteristics of these vehicles and violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. The damages sought were the value of every Land Rover vehicle sold in the United States since 1987, which was estimated at $1 billion. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification; after this decision, plaintiffs walked away from the case and dismissed it outright.
• Representation of Nissan in a three- week jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland in April-May 1998. The issue was an allegedly defective steering wheel and column which plaintiffs claimed was not crashworthy and resulted in plaintiff’s fatal injury. Plaintiff settled with the co-defendant driver for $750,000 just prior to trial. The trial resulted in a jury verdict of $4 million for plaintiffs. On appeal, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed and entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Nissan on all plaintiffs’ claims. Nissan v. Nave, Md.App. 90, 740 A.2d 102 (Md. App. 1999).
• Representation of Toyota in a three-and-a-half- week jury trial in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County, New York, in April 1997. This was the first catastrophic injury case tried by any automotive manufacturer in which the defect claim was an over-aggressive air bag. Plaintiff had undergone five cervical surgeries and was totally disabled from her surgical practice as a result of the accident, and presented evidence of special damages totaling $13.2 million. The trial was further complicated by the fact that there were eleven separate days during the trial where there were front-page headlines about automotive manufacturers depowering air bags or the U.S. government investigating air bags in vehicles. The jury returned a verdict for Toyota.
• Representation of Toyota in a three-week jury trial in the Circuit Court for Jasper County, Joplin, Missouri, in April-May 1996. The issue was an allegedly defective cruise control, brake switch and handling stability of a Toyota 4-Runner. Plaintiff was exiting an interstate when his 4-Runner overturned; plaintiff suffered brain damage, and the special damages were $20 million. Plaintiff’s counsel was a member of the Inner Circle of Advocates who boasted of never having lost a product liability trial and claimed to have spent $600,000 on this case on experts and court exhibits. The jury returned a verdict for Toyota.
• Representation of Nissan in a one-week jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in January 1995. Plaintiff claimed that the motorized seatbelt design was defective because it would intermittently fail to release and would sometimes tighten up on the driver or passenger. Plaintiff's counsel filed this as a lemon law action, and claimed he had numerous other potential plaintiffs ready to file as part of a nationwide class action against Nissan for an allegedly defective seatbelt system. The jury returned a verdict for Nissan.
• Representation of General Motors in a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Rockville, Maryland, in October-November 1993. Plaintiff claimed a defective transmission had caused the vehicle to move forward in a repair shop bay, crushing plaintiff. After six trial days the court granted a directed verdict for GM.
• Representation of General Motors in a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, in July 1993. The issue was an allegedly defective floor mat which interfered with the throttle controls and caused a Cadillac to accelerate through two parking lots, through the wall of a Pizza Hut, and through the restaurant, killing a restaurant patron. Plaintiff settled with the co-defendant driver for $1.6 million just prior to trial. The court granted a directed verdict for GM after four trial days.
• Representation of General Motors in the Supreme Court of New York, Bronx County, in July 1993. Plaintiff claimed a stuck throttle had caused his vehicle to accelerate, resulting in its impacting a building and causing numerous injuries. The case settled on the first day of trial.
• Representation of General Motors in a one-week jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in September-October 1991. The issue was an alleged cruise control defect which caused the car to suddenly accelerate and impact a tree. The U.S. government had investigated the particular model of GM vehicle at issue. Plaintiff suffered multiple fractures including broken pelvis and two broken legs. The jury returned a verdict for GM.
• Representation of General Motors in a jury trial in the Circuit Court, Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Belleville, Illinois, in September 1991. Plaintiff claimed that her throttle allegedly stuck and caused her to impact a tree at approximately 60 mph. She suffered extensive injuries to her legs and pelvis. The case settled after seven trial days.
• Representation of the Coleman Company in a jury trial in the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County, Maryland, in July-August 1991. The issue was the allegedly defective design of a BB air pistol; plaintiffs claimed that the pistol had spontaneously discharged a BB even though it had "dry fired" numerous times. The injury was a loss of an eye in a 12-year-old boy. The case settled after three trial days.
• Representation of the Raymond Corporation in a one-week jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Case No. R89-3198, in November 1990. Plaintiff had been operating his fork lift in a warehouse, stopped the fork lift and stepped off into the path of a fork lift which was backing up. Plaintiff suffered a crushing foot injury. The issue was the design of the fork lift and the absence of backup warning devices. The jury returned a verdict for Raymond.
• Representation of General Motors in a one week jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Dayton, Ohio, in October-November, 1990. Plaintiff claimed there was a defect in the design of his throttle system that caused his car to suddenly accelerate and travel several hundred yards before impacting a wall. Plaintiff suffered extensive orthopedic injuries. The court directed a verdict for GM at the close of plaintiff’s case.
• Representation of Toyota in a one-week jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in November 1989. The issue was alleged steering lockup which caused the plaintiff’s Toyota to leave the roadway and strike a tree; plaintiff suffered quadriplegic injuries. The jury returned a verdict for Toyota.
• Representation of General Motors in a one-week jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in September 1989. Plaintiff was traveling at Interstate speed when his dashboard spontaneously erupted in flames; plaintiff claimed he had suffered a heart attack as a result of the shock of the accident, and claimed a wiring defect in the car. The jury returned a verdict for GM.

Published Opinions

• Florian v. Danaher Corporation, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 12303 (2nd. Cir. 2003)
• Ford Motor Co. v. General Accident Insurance Co., 365 Md. 321, 779 A.2d 362, 2001 Md. LEXIS 608, 45 U.C.C. Rep.Serv.2d (Callaghan) 319 (Md. 2001
• Goldman v. Toyota, 283 A.D.2d 457, 724 N.Y.S.2d 630, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5000 (N.Y. App. 2001)
• Wood v. Toyota, 134 Md. App. 512, 760 A.2d 315, 2000 Md. App. LEXIS 167 (Md. App. 2000), cert. denied 362 Md. 189, 763 A.2d 735, 2000 Md. LEXIS 865 (Md. 2000)
• Tucker v. Ohtsu, 191 F.R.D. 495, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6622 (D.Md. 2000)
• Nave v. Nissan, 129 Md. App. 90, 740 A. 2d 102, 1999 Md. App. LEXIS 189 (Md. App. 1999), cert denied 357 Md. 482, 2000 Md. LEXIS 85 (Md. 2000)
• Marshall v. Toyota, 181 F.3d 89, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 21812, 1999 LEXIS 13209 (4th Cir. 1999)
• Tucker v. Ohtsu, 49 F.Supp. 2d 456, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13511 (D.Md. 1999)
• Bobrowsky v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 261 A.D.2d 349, 689 N.Y.S. 2d 183, 1999 N.Y. App. LEXIS 4463 (N.Y. App. 1999), appeal denied, 94 N.Y.2d 752, 722 N.E. 2d 506, 700 N.Y.S. 2d 426, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 3674 (NY 1999)
• Juliano v. Toyota, 20 F.Supp.2d 573, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14637 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
• Jazini v. Nissan, 148 F.3d 181, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 13850 (2nd Cir. 1998)
• In re Air Bag Products Liability Litigation, 7 F. Supp.2d 792 (E.D.La.1998)
• White v. Toyota, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 3642 (4th Cir. 1998)
• Burns v. General Motors, 950 F. Supp. 137, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19429 (D.Md. 1996)
• ACandS, Inc. v. Asner, 344 Md. 155, 686 A.2d 250, 1996 Md. LEXIS 105, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P14,774 (Md. 1996)
• Lowery v. General Motors, 19 F.3d 1429, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12980, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 5128 (4th Cir. 1994)
• Tabod v. Avis Rent a Car System, Inc., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15694 (D.Md. 1993)
• Mastalski v. International Business Machines Corporation, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 20730 (4th Cir. 1992)
• Tucker v. General Motors, 945 F.2d 405, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 28333, 1991 U.S. LEXIS 23184 (6th Cir. 1991)
• Pusey v. Dallas Corporation, 938 F.2d 498, 20 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 312, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 15005 (4th Cir. 1991)
• Jones v. Toyota, 928 F. 2d 399, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 8670, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 4014 (4th Cir. 1991)
• Tauber v. Nissan, 671 F. Supp. 1070 (D.Md. 1987); summary judgment for Nissan
• Chase v. General Motors, 856 F.2d 17, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 12149, 26 Fed. R. Evid. Serv (Callaghan 1010) (4th Cir. 1988)
• Kriegsman v. General Motors, 843 F.2d 1387, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 4018 (4th Cir. 1988)
• Barnes v. General Motors, 826 F.2d 1059, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 10429 (4th Cir. 1987)
• Wernsing v. General Motors, 298 Md. 406, 470 A.2d 802, 1984 Md. LEXIS 215 (Md. 1984)

許可

• California
• District of Columbia
• Maryland
• New York
• Virginia
• United States Supreme Court
• United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• United States District Court for the District of Maryland
• United States District Court for the District of Columbia
• United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
• United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
• United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
• United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia
• United States District Court for the Northern District of California
• United States District Court for the Central District of California

專業資格

• Permanent Member, Judicial Conference of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• American Bar Association
• Product Liability Advisory Council
• Defense Research Institute
• Maryland Bar Association
• Baltimore City Bar Association

出版物

• Dewey and Russo , Maryland Product Liability Law (2003) (MICPEL)
• Dewey, Mullady, Burch, and Brown, Products Liability Law Manual, (1990) (1992) (1994) (MICPEL)
• Dewey, "Traps in Multitortfeasor Settlements," Litigation, American Bar Association, Summer, 1987

Seminars

• "General Legal Principles of Toxic Torts and Products Liability," seminar given to Maryland State Court
• "Prosecuting and Defending a Product Liability Case," seminar given for the Maryland Institute of Continuing Professional Education (MICPEL), Columbia, Maryland (March 2004)
• Judges, Maryland Judicial Institute, Annapolis, Maryland (April 2004)
• "Battle of the Experts in Toxic Tort Litigation," Presentation at USWAG Toxic Tort and Civil Litigation Workshop, Jupiter Beach, Florida (November 2002)
• "Automotive Issues," Presentation to Maryland District Court Judges, Judicial Education Conference, Columbia, Maryland (November 1997)
• "Products Liability," CLE Seminar given for the Baltimore City Bar Association, Baltimore, Maryland (Summer 1996)
• "Federal Preemption in Motor Vehicle Litigation," presentation at ABA/TIPS Seminar on Emerging Issues in Motor Vehicle Product Liability Litigation, Phoenix, Arizona (March 1995)
• "Products Liability Update," Seminar Given to Maryland State Court Judges, Maryland Judicial Institute, Crownsville, Maryland (October 1994)
• "Techniques Successfully Employed in the Defense of Automotive and Industrial Equipment Manufacturers," Presentation at Diamond Seminar on Implications of U.S. Product Liability Law on Japanese Manufacturers, Tokyo, Japan (June 1994)
• "Current Developments in Products Liability," Seminar given for the Maryland Institute of Continuing Professional Education (MICPEL), Baltimore, Maryland (Spring 1994)
• "Specialty Areas in Civil Litigation: Products Liability," Seminar Given to Maryland State Court Judges, Maryland Judicial Institute, Towson, Maryland (October 1991)
• "Products Liability," Seminar given for the Maryland Institute of Continuing Education (MICPEL), Baltimore, Maryland (Fall 1990)

職員資訊

• The Honorable Roszel C. Thomsen, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland