Joe Eaton focuses on shielding clients from toxic tort, environmental exposure and contamination and product liability claims, applying his formidable skills and dedication to obtaining favorable results in state and federal courts nationwide. Joe’s strategic approach to resolving litigation combines aggressive defense tactics with a deep understanding of scientific and technical evidence that allows clients to more effectively navigate complex litigation with confidence.

Clients benefit from Joseph's deep experience in chemical product liability and environmental exposure and contamination litigation. His ability to challenge expert testimony and secure favorable rulings in Rule 702, Daubert and Frye hearings frequently proves invaluable. These skills often allow Joseph to dismantle weak scientific claims and resolve cases before they reach costly trials.

Quote Icon
In the courtroom, science is our ally. I focus on translating complex technical concepts into compelling arguments for judges and juries.
Experience
  • Barnes & Thornburg client Dow AgroSciences LLC (“DAS”) recently obtained a dismissal in a wrongful death action filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey against DAS and other defendants.

    The plaintiff’s state-court complaint alleged strict liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and loss of consortium relating to the manufacturing and sale of certain pesticides. Plaintiff also brought a survivor’s action which included claims of negligence and loss of consortium. On October 1, 2012, DAS filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the statute of limitations for the plaintiff’s claims against DAS had long expired. When filing her initial Complaint, the plaintiff had utilized New Jersey’s fictitious defendant rule and named ABC Company and John Does 1-100 as defendants, among others. Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of New Jersey’s fictitious defendant rule, DAS also argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to relate her addition of DAS back to the date of the original Complaint.

    After filing the motion to dismiss and threatening plaintiff’s counsel with a motion for sanctions for their continuous pursuit of a frivolous cause of action in violation of New Jersey law, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss DAS with prejudice three days before the motion hearing in late October.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a chemical manufacturer allegedly supplying defective technology to a toll manufacturer in a chemical plant explosion case involving personal injury and property damage; pursued counterclaim through lengthy jury trial resulting in pre-verdict settlement.
Credentials

Education

  • Butler University, B.S., 1988
  • Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, J.D., 1991

Bar Admissions

  • Indiana

Court Admissions

  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
Insights & Events