Vlada Tasich

Co-Chair, Product Liability Practice Group

    Vlada Tasich is a litigation and trial attorney who has been defending the interests of companies and individuals in complex civil litigation matters throughout the state and federal courts of Pennsylvania for over twenty years. As co-chair of the firm’s Product Liability Practice Group, his experience encompasses all aspects of motor vehicle design and manufacture, appliances, consumer electronics, residential and industrial fires, durable medical equipment, industrial equipment, exercise equipment, perishable items and many other consumer goods. He also represents clients in matters involving pharmacy malpractice, premises liability, transportation litigation, construction accidents and consumer class actions. Vlada’s clients have retained him to coordinate litigation nationally and to serve as regional counsel.

    Having previously been recognized as a “Rising Star” by Pennsylvania Super Lawyers from 2010 to 2012, Vlada has been selected to the Pennsylvania Super Lawyer list for product liability defense each year since 2015. He also is frequently asked by clients and industry organizations to lecture on various issues in product liability, premises liability, and motor vehicle law.

    Born and raised in Philadelphia, Vlada received his B.A. from George Washington University in 1997 and his J.D. from the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law in 2001.

    Significant Representative Matters

    Successfully defended dealer of an asphalt compactor in a two-week product liability trial in Philadelphia County. Plaintiff sustained a severe crush injury to the leg, and the jury returned a verdict against defendants dealer and manufacturer for over $900,000. On motion for judgment as a matter of law, the Court granted the client's cross-claim for indemnity against the co-defendant manufacturer on a pass through liability theory based on absence of evidence of substantial change to the product by dealer.

    Obtained a dismissal with prejudice of a products liability case filed against an alcohol beverage manufacturer. The Plaintiffs are individuals who were seriously injured or killed when the alleged minor drunk driver of the vehicle in which they were passengers was involved in a single car accident. The Plaintiffs claimed that the manufacturer was liable to them because the product had more alcohol than other alcohol beverages, was improperly marketed to minors, like their driver, and did not warn of the dangers associated with the beverage. Our team argued several points including that Pennsylvania does not recognize such a products liability cause of action because the dangers of drinking alcohol and driving are obvious, and the manufacturer has no duty to warn potential users of such dangers.  Additionally, alcohol is not an unreasonably dangerous product.

    Defense verdict in week-long product liability trial in Philadelphia County for global electronics manufacturer involving a fire loss allegedly due to one of its microwave ovens. There was no direct evidence of the alleged defective condition, and the plaintiff proceeded on malfunction theory. Unanimous jury found the plaintiff failed to eliminate all other possible causes of the fire.

    Obtained dismissal of major vehicle manufacturer by non suit after week-long product liability trial in Philadelphia County involving industrial equipment after plaintiffs failed to present evidence of negligence and causation.

    Denial of class certification in action against insurance carrier for alleged breach of fiduciary duties and violations of insurance regulations.

    Denial of class certification in action against insurance company for alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.

    Successful defense and resolution of numerous class actions involving claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and other state consumer protection laws.

    Successful defense of national retail chain during four day trial in Philadelphia County premises liability action.  Plaintiff fell on defendant’s premises allegedly due to insufficient safety precautions taken by store employees, and sustained a traumatic brain injury.  Pretrial settlement demand was $500,000.  Liability was contested, and competing adverse inference instructions were given by the Court for alleged evidence spoliation.  Plaintiff contended defendant failed to preserve security camera footage.  The defense offered expert testimony that a key scene photograph taken by plaintiff had been altered.  Upon deliberation, the jury found 50% liability against plaintiff and returned a four-figure nuisance verdict.

    Classes/Seminars Taught

    Social Inflation, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, June 21, 2022

    Autonomous Vehicles: The Rise of the Machines, ILG Virtual Conference, March 25, 2021

    Published Works

    "Tincher – One Year Later," Defense Digest, Vol. 21, No. 4, December 2015

    "Owners of Registered but Uninsured Vehicles Beware Pennsylvania Superior Court Ruling Makes First Party Benefits Unrecoverable," Defense Digest, Vol. 9, No. 4, December 2003

    U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania
    U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania
    Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (J.D., 2001)
    The George Washington University (B.A., 1997)
    Honors & awards
    Pennsylvania Super Lawyers
    Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star
    Associations & memberships
    Defense Research Institute (DRI)
    Pennsylvania Bar Association
    Product Liability Advisory Council (PLAC)
    Year joined