Photo of Edward S. Bott, Jr.

Edward S. Bott, Jr.

Officer

“Through years of experience in products liability defense, I’ve had the opportunity to work closely with leading experts in various engineering disciplines, learning about industries ranging from automotive and consumer products to pharmaceutical and medical devices.”

Admissions

  • Missouri
  • Illinois
  • U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
  • U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit
  • U.S. Supreme Court

Education

J.D., Western New England Law School, 1980

A.B., Duke University, 1977

Profile

In his regional and national litigation practice, Ed Bott has significant trial experience and a strong track record on behalf of manufacturers and health care providers facing product liability or medical malpractice claims.

For more than three decades, Ed has represented a spectrum of manufacturers against claims of product liability. His clients have included those in the automotive, tire, trucking, motorcycle, industrial products, friction products, pharmaceutical, medical device and consumer products industries. He is trial counsel for an 11-state region for a major tire manufacturer and serves as national coordinating counsel for a St. Louis-based medical device manufacturer. Ed’s national reputation in product liability has resulted in leadership roles, including as a sustaining member of the Product Liability Advisory Council and a former chair of the Automotive Subcommittee to the Product Liability Section of the American Bar Association. He is active with the International Association of Defense Counsel.

In his health care-related practice, Ed began representing hospitals and physicians in the mid-1980s and now handles medical negligence claims for more than seven hospitals in Illinois and Missouri. He has extensive experience in cases involving diverse health care issues including birth-related injuries and resuscitation, emergency medicine, neurosurgery, neurology, surgery and radiology, to name a few. In his role as counsel to certain hospitals, Ed advises on issues involving policies and procedures, risk management, quality and credentialing.

Ed also has represented corporations large and small in the defense of employment discrimination claims and lawsuits, with experience handling cases based on age, sex, gender, retaliation and disability discrimination. He is an approved panel counsel on employment claims for a major insurer.

A leader at the firm, Ed is a former member of its Board of Directors and chair of the product liability practice area.

Professional Affiliations

  • International Association of Defense Counsel
  • Illinois State Bar Association
  • The Missouri Bar
  • Product Liability Advisory Council (PLAC)

Honors & Awards

Honors & Awards

  • The Best Lawyers in America, Medical Malpractice Law, 2015-2017
  • Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent

Experience

Representative Matters

  • Obtained two defense verdicts on behalf of a tire manufacturer in trials over plaintiff’s claims related to motorcycle crashes.

Plaintiffs in Washington state had sought more than $25 million after a motorcycle accident that caused serious brain injury.
The family of a Wisconsin man killed in a Wyoming motorcycle crash alleged tire defects had caused the fatal incident.

  • Obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a hospital system and two neurosurgeons in a multimillion-dollar wrongful-death medical malpractice case.
  • Obtained a defense verdict for a major tractor-trailer manufacturer over allegations of design defects in the back of cab access, causing serious injuries to the operator.
  • Won a defense verdict in a case involving an alleged design defect in the operator seat and suspension system of a shuttle car used to haul coal in underground mining operations. This result ultimately led plaintiff’s counsel to abandon another 50 cases involving the same product and design theories.
  • A defense verdict was returned in a trial for an automotive manufacturer involving claims that defects in design and manufacture led to a crash that caused injuries to the plaintiff and the death of the plaintiff’s spouse.
  • Obtained a defense verdict after a plaintiff alleged burn injuries due to the faulty design of a consumer product.
  • Obtained a defense verdict for an Illinois hospital in a claim brought on behalf of a fetus alleging injuries and total damages in excess of $10 million as a result of the exposure in utero to I-131 iodine used to diagnose thyroid cancer in the mother.
  • Obtained a defense verdict for an Illinois hospital and emergency physician in a claim alleging delay in treatment caused the death of a 50-year-old woman.
  • Defense of a workers’ compensation retaliatory discharge claim that was removed to federal court. A jury found in favor of Exxon. On appeal, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a workers’ compensation retaliatory discharge claim does not arise under Illinois’ workers’ compensation laws and is thereby not barred from removal by 28 USC §1445(c). The plaintiff petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for leave to appeal, which was denied. Spearman V. Exxon Coal USA, Inc., 16 F. 3d 722 (7th Circuit, 1994).
  • A trial court granted summary judgment to Exxon Coal on a plaintiff’s claim that the company’s drug and alcohol policy violated his rights under the ADA. The trial court decision was affirmed by the 7th Circuit. Huels v. Exxon Coal USA, Inc., 121 F. 3d 1047 (7th Circuit, 1997).
  • Two former employees of Exxon Coal brought suit alleging age discrimination as part of a reduction in force. Before and through the course of a five-week jury trial, Exxon Coal was awarded summary judgment on several of the plaintiffs’ claims. The jury found that the plaintiffs were not terminated because of their age. The 7th Circuit affirmed the lower court decisions in their entirety. Sauzek v. Exxon Coal USA, Inc. 202 F. 3d 913 (7th Circuit, 2000).
  • A former employee sued Kmart for retaliatory discharge, allegedly as a result of whistleblower activity. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer. The 7th Circuit affirmed on appeal. Bourbon v. Kmart Corp., 2000 WL 109216 4 (7th Circuit, 2000)