Donald P. Eichhorn Partner




Don Eichhorn maintains a diverse civil litigation practice and has significant experience defending product, premises and municipal liability claims, as well as handling employment-related matters. Don is a tenacious advocate who, on every matter, aggressively defends his client’s position in order to reach the best possible resolution. During his career, he has taken more than 50 cases to verdict.

Don has defended numerous manufacturers in lawsuits alleging serious personal injuries and involving myriad types of products, from sporting goods to industrial equipment to home appliances. His experience includes the representation of trailer manufacturers in trucking liability claims alleging product defect and negligence.

A significant portion of Don’s practice is concentrated in premises liability. He has defended personal injury and wrongful death claims arising from a variety of incidents at golf courses, shopping centers and hotels most recently involving shootings and falls from balconies. He also has a growing municipal liability practice representing a rapid transit agency in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising from accidents that occur during the course of train operations.

Additionally, Don has a strong background in employment liability litigation with experience representing employers, managers and supervisors in discrimination, sexual harassment and wrongful termination lawsuits.

Don is a licensed pilot and former naval aviator who served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1971-1975.

Representative Matters

Defended a national trailer manufacturer in the nine-week jury trial of a product liability claim seeking $25 million in damages for significant personal injuries. Plaintiff claimed our client negligently serviced and modified the original design of a tractor trailer to accommodate heavier loads, causing the trailer to fail and causing a rollover crash. Following post-trial motions to determine offsets, pre-judgment offers and memorandum of costs, plaintiff owed our client money.

Obtained a defense verdict for a manufacturer of glass shower doors in a personal injury lawsuit in which plaintiff alleged that a design defect caused her to sustain lacerations to her face and body when she fell through her shower door.

Obtained a defense verdict for local rapid transit agency in a lawsuit alleging defective design of the doors on a train car. Plaintiff fell while boarding a train and sustained a fractured neck when the doors closed on her.

Obtained defense verdict for local rapid transit agency in a lawsuit alleging design defect. Plaintiff gashed her leg when she fell into the gap between the station platform and the train car she was attempting to board.

Defended a chemical manufacturer in a product liability lawsuit involving a chemical compound used to split large rocks. Plaintiff, a state employee, failed to follow the manufacturer’s written handling instructions provided with the compound, and the material came in contact with his eyes causing plaintiff to lose an eye. During trial, plaintiff agreed to a nominal settlement.

Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a gas cylinder manufacturer in a product liability claim. Plaintiff’s decedent was killed while attending her son’s birthday party at a paintball facility when a pressurized gas cylinder manufactured by our client detached from a paintball gun and struck her on the back of the head. Discovery established that the owner of the paintball gun had placed a “dip tube” inside the cylinder to allow the gun to shoot faster but failed to adequately tighten the valve assembly to the cylinder following the modification, causing the cylinder to separate from the paintball gun.

Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a bathtub manufacturer in a lawsuit claiming defective design and failure to comply with applicable industry standards. While a guest at a hotel, plaintiff slipped and fell in a bathtub, struck his head on the sink and sustained a closed head injury. Plaintiff’s expert testified that although the tub complied with certain standards, it did not comply with principles of forensic safety. Decision affirmed on appeal