Peter A. Lentini LinkedIn

Attorney in Cherry Hill, NJ

A shareholder in the firm's Cherry Hill, New Jersey, office, Peter practices in the area of general civil litigation, with particular emphasis on product liability and premises liability litigation. With trial experience in both state and federal courts in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Peter has handled hundreds of product liability, motor vehicle, and premises claims - many involving death, paralysis, loss of limb, burns, blindness, brain injuries, and other severe and permanent injuries. He also defended fire loss cases for a major manufacturer of computer equipment. Sample product claims have involved hunting tree stands, conveyors, commercial laundry equipment, gas powered cut saw, industrial machinery, electric carts, laptop computers, printers, HVAC systems, sprinkler valves, gym equipment, portable stairs, safety harness, dishwasher, roofing materials, and manufactured homes.

Peter has considerable experience in product litigation relating to hunting tree stand accidents. He has worked for various manufacturers, retailers, and insurance companies in this industry. In addition to handling these claims directly in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Peter has counseled, handled, or overseen the defense of over 200 product claims in states such as Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Additionally, Peter has served as an adjunct professor of pre-trial advocacy for Rutgers School of Law in Camden, New Jersey, and is a member of the Camden County Bar Association.

Significant Representative Matters

· Granted summary judgment in gasoline powered saw case involving head injuries resulting in medical expenses of $500,000, severe scarring, and allegations of permanent injury.

· Granted summary judgment in a construction/roofing accident case involving head injuries resulting in medical expenses of $400,000, skull disfigurement, and allegations of permanent injury.

· Dismissal in death case that resulted in settlement of $6 million by co-defendants. Established that client had limited or no role in allegations of negligence related to rail yard accident.

· Identified the misuse of a product as a likely cause of an accident involving the traumatic amputation of two fingers resulting in an $80,000 settlement of claim despite $150,000 workers' compensation lien.

· Blofstein v. Rubenstein, et al. Civil rights claim against Bucks County District Attorney and Prison Warden, verdict for defendants.

· Howarth v. Reorganized Church Horseback riding accident, 13-year-old plaintiff with brain injury, $50,000 medical expenses, admission of negligence, settlement demand $2.6 million, settlement offer $250,000, total jury verdict of $77,826.

· Grumbling v. Loggy Bayou Product claim involving fall from hunting tree stand, spinal fractures necessitating four level lumbar spinal fusion, settlement demand $800,000, verdict for defendant.

· Leiggi v. Loggy Bayou Product claim involving fall from hunting tree stand, disc herniation, fractured arm and ribs, $250,000 stipulated damages, verdict for defendant.

· Crisefi v. Oaklyn Board of Education Negligent supervision claim against school teachers, sixth grader with wrist fracture/permanent residual claims, verdict for defendants.

· Torrez v. Super Fresh Negligent maintenance of hydraulic pallet jack, knee and ankle surgeries, $90,000 jury verdict, reversed -verdict entered for defendant on appeal.

· Coyne v. Laidlaw Motor vehicle accident, cervical spinal disectomy with two level fusion and insertion of Codman plate, liability awarded to plaintiff via summary judgment before trial, $300,000 demand after summary judgment, $75,000 jury verdict.

· Mazza v. SK Hand Tools Product liability claim involving broken ratchet, plaintiff rendered legally blind in tire changing accident. Verdict for defendant.

Associations & Memberships

· Camden County Bar Association

Honors & Awards

· New Jersey Super Lawyer, 2005, 2010

Year Joined Organization: 2007

(856) 414-6000
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 4.4 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Product Liability
  • Trucking and Transportation Litigation
  • Premises Liability
  • Fire Loss Subrogation

 

Peer Rating

bv

Overall Peer Rating

4.4 out of 5.0
  • Meets very high criteria of general ethical standards
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.

Experience & Credentials

Position

Shareholder

Admission Details

Admitted in 1987, Pennsylvania
1987, New Jersey

Law School Attended

Temple University School of Law, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Class of 1987
J.D.
Law Review: Member, Temple Law Quarterly, 1986 - 1987

University Attended

La Salle University
Class of 1984
B.A.
cum laude

Contact Information

Phone

(856) 414-6000

Fax

(856) 414-6077

Email

Send email to Peter A. Lentini


Office Information
Peter A. Lentini
Shareholder
Woodland Falls Corporate Park, Suite 300 200 Lake Drive East,
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002

Loading...

Logo
Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C. (Cherry Hill, New Jersey)

About Client Rating
About Peer Rating

Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

Determining a Rating

The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

  • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
  • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
  • 1-2.9 Rated

Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

The Reviewers

Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.

Anonymity

Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell's role

Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.