Source: http://www.jlolaw.com/our-professionals/lawrence-m-rocheford/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 11:50:38+00:00

Document:
Product Liability. In the area of product liability, most of his cases arise from an accident involving a product, around equipment at a place of employment or worksite, or involve a construction project. Larry has counseled manufacturing clients into and through design changes, retrofits and remediation programs.
Civil Litigation Defense. Larry has extensive experience representing clients and insurers in the areas of general liability, product liability, motor vehicle claims, commercial litigation, employer liability and business litigation. He has also handled numerous fire and explosion cases from first notice of the casualty event, through investigation, suit commencement, discovery, motion practice, trial and appeals.
Major Case Experience. Larry has successfully defended and tried catastrophic injury and major cases, including products, construction, negligence, dram shop, motor vehicle and premises liability cases. The damages sought in these cases have included compensation for severe burns, traumatic brain injuries, poly trauma, amputations, paralysis or partial paralysis, wrongful death and, in Wisconsin, survivor’s loss damages.
In the area of employment law, Larry has defended employers in defamation matters, trade secret, shareholder control agreement cases, work-place violence, negligent hiring, training and retention claims. He has also defended and prosecuted contractual indemnity and declaratory judgment actions.
Larry is frequently retained to offer opinions on issues and cases concerning insurance coverage, ERISA, COBRA, shareholder control agreements, business torts, employer liability and has tried insurance fraud cases.
Larry focuses his practice on the representation of individuals, businesses and governmental entities in civil litigation. He is known by his clients as a problem solver whose skill set is very personalized and client focused. Larry is admitted to practice law in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh and Eighth Circuits and the U.S. Supreme Court. Larry has also handled cases in Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri, Iowa and Kansas.
He is a Board Certified Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy (NBTA) and has been certified as a Civil Trial Specialist by the Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA). Larry has an AV® Peer Review Rating in the distinguished legal directory, Martindale-Hubbell®,* and has been selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers® 2006-2018 Editions. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Larry was also recognized in Minnesota Super Lawyers® Business Editions and in 2008, 2009 and 2010 Larry was recognized in the Super Lawyers® Corporate Counsel Edition in the area of general Civil Litigation Defense and Personal Injury Defense.
Following law school, he worked for West Publishing as an editor of their monthly newsletter promoting computerized legal research. He joined Jardine Logan & O’Brien in 1985 and has held many leadership positions in the firm. In his free time, Larry enjoys traveling, golf, fishing, bird hunting, and spending time with his wife and two children.
Schupp v. United Fire & Casualty Co., 821 N.W.2d 824 (Minn.Ct.App. 2012). Insurance coverage excluded for defendant involved in a double death van motor cycle accident case.
Oslund v. Johnson, 578 N.W.2d 353 (Minn. 1998). Contribution against taverns not allowed under Minnesota Liquor Liability or Dram Shop Act.
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Brekke Fireplace Shoppe, Inc., 495 N.W.2d 216 (Minn.Ct.App. 1993) Products liability case arising from a portable propane gas heater.
Schumacher v. Heig, 454 N.W.2d 446 (Minn.Ct.App. 1990). Contribution not allowed in an all terrain vehicle accident case.
Nichols v. Meilahn, 444 N.W.2d 872 (Minn.Ct.App. 1989). Garnishment of insurance policy not allowed following a judgment from a car accident case.
John Deere Insurance Company v. Penna, 416 N.W.2d 820 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987). Claims under the Uniform Commercial Code barred by “As Is” language but common-law misrepresentation claim remanded for trial.
Ocel v. City of Eagan, 402 N.W.2d 531 (Minn. 1987). Contribution claims time barred under Minnesota’s improvement to realty limitation statute.
Patzwald v. Krey, 390 N.W.2d 920 (Minn.Ct. App. 1986). Homeowner owed no duty to warn or protect her wedding reception guests at her home from an uninvited, crazed neighbor who shot and killed some of the reception guests.
Loosmore v. Parent, 613 N.W.2d 923 (Wis. App. 2000). Employer entitled to defense and indemnity under employee’s personal auto insurance policy.
Blaylock v. Hynes, 104 F.Supp.2d 1184 (D. Minn. 2000). Claimant allowed to proceed on his misrepresentation claim for ERISA health insurance benefits from insurance agent notwithstanding federal pre-emption.
Caraher v. City of Menomonie, 256 Wis.2d 605, 649 N.W.2d 344 (Wis. App. 2002). Wrongful death claim against the city was dismissed pursuant to Wisconsin’s statutory discretionary immunity.
Prokop v. Indep. Sch. Dist. #625, 754. N.W.2d 709 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). School district has statutory park and recreational use immunity for facial (orbital) and vision/sight injury when batted ball went through pitchers net in batting cage crushing pitchers orbit and impairing his vision.
Meintsma v. Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc., 684 N.W.2d 434 (Minn. 2004). In this workplace violence case, whether employee intended to injure a fellow employee under gross negligence exception of Minnesota Statute Sec. 176.061 remanded for trial.
Anderson v. Anoka-Hennepin Indep. Sch. Dist. #11, 678 N.W.2d 651 (Minn. 2004). Official and vicarious official immunity recognized for teacher who taught students not to use a “push stick” when ripping piece of oak in wood shop class.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.