Klein Thomas & Lee get Nissan Off Scot-Free
When the jury returned to the Clark County courtroom on a hot July afternoon, the faces of Nissan’s legal team remained steady. For weeks they had listened as plaintiff’s counsel painted a portrait of corporate indifference — a global automaker that, they claimed, put profits before safety. But after nearly three weeks of testimony and a day and a half of deliberation, the jury sided firmly with Nissan.
The case was one of the most closely watched product-liability trials in Nevada in years. The plaintiffs sought nearly $42 million, alleging that a side-curtain airbag had deployed improperly during a minor collision, leaving Paxin, the plaintiff, with permanent injuries. Before Judge Mark Denton of the Eighth Judicial District Court, the plaintiff’s attorneys, J. Randall Jones, Mona Kaveh, and Kevin Queenan, put on a passionate case, calling engineers, crash experts, and medical specialists to argue that the design of the 2016 Nissan Altima’s airbag system was inherently dangerous.
But the defense, led by Thomas Klein, Greg Gilmer, and Melissa Wilner of Klein Thomas & Lee, took a different tack. Calm, meticulous, and technical, they walked the jury through the airbag’s deployment data, showing that every sensor had worked precisely as designed. Using slow-motion reconstructions and expert analysis, they turned what might have been a dry technical defense into a story about engineering discipline and accountability.
Throughout the proceedings, Klein’s approach was measured, neither grandstanding nor combative, but methodical and deeply confident. His team showed how Nissan’s decades-long commitment to safety testing exceeded federal standards, and how, in this specific crash, the airbag’s split-second deployment had likely saved lives rather than endangered them.
By the end, what had begun as a case about a single car’s airbag had become something larger, a referendum on how juries interpret engineering intent versus outcome. When the verdict came back for the defense, Nissan’s team didn’t cheer. They simply nodded, as if to acknowledge that careful preparation and respect for the facts had done what showmanship could not.
Outside the courthouse, Klein thanked the jurors and Judge Denton for their attention to the evidence. “This case was about trust in engineering,” he said quietly. “We’re grateful the jury saw that.”
For Nissan, the verdict reaffirmed more than the design of one vehicle. It reinforced a legacy of precision — and the quiet confidence of a team that believed science would speak for itself.
Bowman and Brooke Teams up with Squire Patton Boggs to Save Mercedes $2.2 Billion
In early spring 2025, a Wayne County courtroom in Detroit became the stage for a legal drama that pitted a grieving family against one of the world’s most storied automakers. The plaintiffs in Moore et al. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC sought an eye-popping $2.2 billion, alleging that a 2015 Mercedes GL450 contained a fatal design defect that caused a post-collision fire. By the time the jury returned its verdict, it was clear that Mercedes and its lawyers had not only defended the case — they had redefined what patient, fact-driven advocacy looks like.
Presiding Judge Charlene Elder maintained a steady hand throughout the six-week trial. Plaintiffs’ attorneys from Ven Johnson Law presented their case with emotion and fervor, describing the wreck as proof of a systemic failure in the vehicle’s design. But the defense team, led by Thomas P. Branigan, Nicholas G. Even, and Matin Fallahi of Bowman & Brooke, along with Stephen M. Fazio and Alexander P. Imberg of Squire Patton Boggs, chose a different rhythm altogether.
They spoke to the jury not as adversaries but as teachers. Every exhibit, every engineering diagram, every line of testimony told a consistent story: the vehicle had performed exactly as designed in a violent, unpredictable crash that no system could have fully mitigated.
Branigan, a veteran of complex automotive trials, was unflappable. His cross-examinations were precise but respectful, and his closing argument left the jury with a simple question — could any automaker be held liable for a tragedy that no design could prevent?
When the verdict came — a complete defense win — Mercedes’ lawyers didn’t declare victory so much as relief. They had withstood six weeks of scrutiny, endless expert testimony, and the weight of billion-dollar allegations. And in the end, the jury’s decision said what Branigan and his colleagues had believed from the start: that evidence, handled with honesty and care, still matters.
The case underscored the value of discipline and integrity in trial advocacy. For Mercedes-Benz, it was more than a legal victory — it was a validation of the engineering culture that has guided the company for generations.
