Joseph P.H. Babington

Member of the Firm

For more than three decades, Joseph P. H. Babington has handled civil litigation in state and federal courts in Alabama and around the country. Joe has tried cases, argued appeals, and prosecuted and defended arbitrations. He has worked on a broad range of complex matters and has deep experience in products liability defense, catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases, and business and commercial disputes.

Joe presented the winning argument in the United States Supreme Court in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), which clarified the rules governing admissibility of expert testimony in federal courts. Since Kumho, he has successfully handled dozens of cases involving challenges to admissibility of expert testimony. He has also represented defendants, including many of the world’s leading drug and medical device manufacturers, in numerous mass tort, multi-district, and class action litigations.

After graduating with highest honors from the University of Notre Dame, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, Joe earned his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law. Joe and his wife, Kristin, have been married for more than 35 years and have four grown children and four grandchildren. Joe enjoys active outdoor sports, especially paddle boarding, hiking, and fishing.

Areas of Focus

Joseph P. H. Babington has been engaged in a general civil litigation practice since 1984. He has tried cases, argued appeals, and prosecuted and defended arbitrations. He has handled a broad range of complex disputes, from antitrust and breach of contract to fraud and libel to RICO and theft of trade secrets, to name a few. Joe is admitted in all state and federal courts in Alabama and Louisiana as well as the United States Supreme Court, where he presented the winning argument in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).

Best known for his work in products liability defense, catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases, and business and commercial litigation, Joe has been engaged by manufacturers, distributors, retailers , testing facilities, and component fabricators across many industries. Joe and other members of the Helmsing Leach products liability team have defended numerous products and obtained successful outcomes for their clients in hundreds of cases.

Joe has participated in all facets of mass tort and multi-district litigations, serving as national counsel, on trial and science teams, and as state or local counsel. The firm’s mass tort and MDL clients include several of the world’s largest drug and medical device manufacturers. In this work, Joe has appeared or been admitted to practice pro hac vice in prominent state and federal jurisdictions across the country, including work on expert and trial teams in matters before the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles; the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois; the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida; and other challenging venues.

He has also defended companies in class actions, including a telephone service company in an antitrust matter, an inmate telecommunications provider against allegations of fraud and suppression, a chemical manufacturer in a pesticide products liability case, an oil-field services company in dozens of economic injury and property damage class actions arising from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and an insurance carrier in a case alleging systematic underpayments of Alabama property-damage claims over an extended time frame.

In addition to his work on more typical cases, Joe has successfully prosecuted actions in which his clients sought and obtained extraordinary relief, such as preliminary and permanent injunctions and writs of attachments. Joe recently led a team of Helmsing Leach lawyers that recovered more than $6 million for a client within two months of initiating the action.

Other practice areas in which Joe has substantial experience are insurance coverage and commercial arbitration. Joe has handled coverage cases involving Chinese drywall, allocation of large wrongful death verdicts, and professional liability. His arbitration work includes the successful defense of employment-related claims and of a bet-the-company business dispute as well as the prosecution of two arbitration proceedings concerning fraud and breach of a manufacturing agreement—Helmsing Leach’s clients were awarded $8.8 million and $800,000 respectively.

Education

Professional Recognition

Bar & Court Admissions

Louisiana (1984)
Alabama (1988)
Supreme Court of the United States (1998)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
United States District Courts for the Northern, Middle and Southern Districts of Alabama
United States District Courts for the Eastern, Middle and Western Districts of Louisiana
Supreme Court of Alabama and all other Alabama state courts
Supreme Court of Louisiana and all other Louisiana state courts
Pro Hac Vice in numerous other state and federal courts

Professional Affiliations

Significant Cases

Joe has handled several thousand cases during his career. The WestLaw (WL) database lists more than 100 reported opinions or other court decisions in cases in which Joe represented a party. Several significant or representative cases include:

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (a landmark ruling that affirmed summary judgment dismissing wrongful death and multiple substantial personal injury claims against a tire manufacturer, that clarified the standards for admissibility of expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and has been cited more than a thousand times since being released)
McKenzie v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 295 So. 3d 617 (Ala. 2019) (affirming dismissal of original complaint alleging failure-to-warn, negligence, breach-of-warranty, fraud, and loss-of-consortium claims against the manufacturer of a biologic medication for failure to comply with Ala. R. Civ. P. 11(a) as well as affirming dismissal of amended complaint as untimely filed after finding the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendant had fraudulently concealed their other claims was insufficiently pled with the specificity required of fraud claims)
Harper v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2018 WL 2671492 (M.D. Ala., April 4, 2018) (report and recommendation that the court grant summary judgment for a manufacturer of prescription medicine against plaintiffs’ failure-to-warn claims under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine (AEMLD) based on the learned-intermediary doctrine; against plaintiffs’ wantonness claims because the warning did not evidence an indifference to safety; against plaintiffs’ claims of breach of the implied warranty of merchantability for failure to prove the product’s unfitness; against plaintiffs’ fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims for failure to prove proximate causation; and, dismissing all punitive damages claims)
Veolia Water North America Operations Services, LLC v. SSAB Alabama, Inc., 2017 WL 11426724 (N. D. Ala., Nov. 21, 2017) (granting in part summary judgment for plaintiff/counterclaim defendant concerning claims of breach of a Process Water Agreement relating to defendant’s steel mill operations, and noting recovery of $6 million by plaintiff pursuant to a consent order entered within 60 days of filing of the complaint)
Goldthrip v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 2016 WL 2770884 (S.D. Ala., May 13, 2016) (granting summary judgment for the defendant, a manufacturer of a total hip replacement product, because plaintiff had failed to commence the action alleging products liability and other claims on a timely basis)
Ex parte Delta International Machinery Corp., 2011 WL 3211098 (Ala. S. Ct. 2011) (in an action alleging damages under the AEMLD based on allegation defendant’s table saw was defectively designed for failure to incorporate flesh-sensing technology, the Alabama Supreme Court granted defendant’s petition for writ of mandamus prohibiting certain discovery on grounds the documents and data sought constituted protected trade secrets)
Barnhill v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 2011 WL 1837816 (S.D. Ala. May 10, 2011) (granting summary judgment for defendant, a manufacturer of a generic antibiotic prescription medication, as to plaintiff’s claims for failure-to-warn, failure to conduct post-marketing surveillance, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, because plaintiff failed to prove proximate cause)
Patterson v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 2011 WL 3047794 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (denying motion to remand in Alabama case transferred to MDL that alleged products liability and related claims against manufacturer of a total hip replacement medical device, after finding the nonresident defendant, an Alabama sales representative, was fraudulently joined)
Ex parte Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 991 So 2d. 1263 (Ala. 2008) (denying petition for writ of mandamus filed by three of the defendants, all pharmaceutical companies, seeking vacation of the trial court’s order that the State of Alabama’s fraud, misrepresentation, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and other claims related to pricing of defendants’ prescription drugs, be consolidated in a single trial)
Wyatt v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., 2007 WL 7238402 (N.D. Ala. 2007) (excluding testimony of plaintiff’s expert on liability in an action alleging damages, including loss of smell, from use of an over-the-counter cold remedy)
Benkwith v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (M.D. Ala. 2006) (excluding testimony of plaintiff’s expert on liability and granting motion for summary judgment in an action alleging damages, including loss of smell, from use of an over-the-counter cold remedy)
Tillman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F. 3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2003) (remanding claims against tobacco manufacturers and retailers to state court, following ruling by Alabama Supreme Court in answer to certified question that clarified Alabama law relating to the non-merger of negligence and wantonness claims against the retailers into the AEMLD)
Connally v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (S.D. Ala. 1999) (in action alleging products liability and related claims against saw manufacturer and retailer, court granted motions for summary judgment based on ruling that proof of a safer alternative design was an essential element of each cause of action asserted by plaintiff and that plaintiff failed to offer sufficient proof)
Woodward v. NOR-AM Chemical Co., 1996 WL 1063670 (S. D. Ala. 1996) (approving class action settlement in case against manufacturer of agricultural chemical that allegedly caused bladder cancer and other injuries)
Frantz v. Brunswick Corp., 866 F. Supp. 527 (S.D. Ala. 1994) (in action alleging products liability and other claims against outboard engine manufacturer and others arising out of boating accident in which plaintiff suffered a quadriplegia injury, court inter alia granted defendant’s motion that the general maritime law applied to the claims and struck plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages)
Masonry Arts, Inc. v. Mobile County Comm’n, 628 So.2d 334 (Ala. 1993) (in context of a multi-million-dollar public works project, order dismissing appeal as moot following judgment of trial court that Alabama’s competitive bid law had not been violated and unsuccessful bidder was not entitled to injunction prohibiting county from awarding the contract to the successful bidder)
Swint v. Protective Life Corporation, 779 F. Supp 532 (S. D. Ala. 1991) (judgment for plaintiff against health insurance provider in ERISA action)
Talb, Inc. v. Dot Dot Corporation, 559 So. 2d 1054 (Ala. 1990) (affirming trial court’s judgment awarding damages and attorney’s fees totaling more than $450,000 and denying fraud counterclaim in action to enforce promissory note)
ONS Group, Inc. v. Mintz, 501 So.2d 255 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1986) (affirming judgment of trial court awarding damages breach of sales contract for purchase of 40,000 sunglasses for sale at 1984 World’s Fair)

Speeches & Presentations

Joe has made dozens of continuing legal education (CLE) and other professional presentations to numerous organizations, including the Section of Litigation of the American Bar Association; the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Conference; the Defense Research Institute; the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel; the Alabama State Bar; and others. Examples of recent CLE presentations include:

Woodshedding Workshop: Legal, Practical and Ethical Considerations of Communications with 3rd Party Witnesses – presented to DRI Toxic Torts Seminar, March 20, 2009

Scottsdale, Arizona

Faculty for FDCC Deposition Boot Camp, December 7-8, 2015

Atlanta, Georgia

Top 10 Rules for Preparing Your Expert Deposition - presented during FDCC Webinar, February 2016

Update on 2018-2019 noteworthy cases from 11th Circuit, presented to Trial Attorneys of America Annual Meeting, June 12-14, 2019

Chicago, Illinois