

Judge campaign candidates speak at dinner in Towanda
Judge Beirne unopposed in local race
Attorney General Tom Corbett to visit Bradford County
Beirne will run for full term as judge
Bradford County Employers Laying Off Workers
Death Benefits Not Mandatory for PA Car Insurance
Bradford County: Judge Beirne presiding
Pennsylvania Senate confirms Beirne as Bradford County judge
From PRWeb.com:
San Jose, CA (PRWEB) June 8, 2008 -- A Federal Jury returned a verdict late Friday afternoon in the amount of $6,221,000.00 against TASER International Inc., for the wrongful death of a 40-year-old Salinas, California, man, who died following repeated shocks from three TASER electronic control devices ("ECDs").
The jury of five women and two men found that TASER International knew or should have known that its M26 model ECD was dangerous because prolonged exposures to the device pose a substantial risk of cardiac arrest to persons against whom the device is deployed. The jury also found that TASER International failed to adequately warn purchasers of its device of the risks associated with its use. It awarded the parents of Robert Heston $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000,000.00 in punitive damages. The jury also awarded Heston's estate $21,000.00 in compensatory damages and another $200,000.00 in punitive damages. However, it also found Robert Heston 85% comparatively negligent for the incident which ultimately resulted in his death. Only the compensatory damage award will be reduced by his percentage of comparative negligence.
On February 19, 2005, Robert C. Heston began acting erratically inside his family's Salinas, California home. Believing his son might be under the influence of drugs, Heston's father called the police reporting his son's bizarre behavior and asked them for help in removing his son from the home. Officers from the Salinas Police Department responded to the Heston home and confronted Mr. Heston. Three police officers used their TASER ECDs repeatedly subjecting Mr. Heston to nearly 75 seconds of continuous TASER discharges as other officers attempted to handcuff Heston on the living room floor. While being subjected to the TASER discharges, Heston suffered a cardiac arrest causing irreversible brain damage. He was removed from life support the following day and died shortly thereafter.
In their lawsuit, Heston v. City of Salinas, et al., N.D. Cal. Case No. C 05-03658 JW, Heston's parents alleged that TASER ECDs are unreasonably dangerous and defective for use on human beings because they are sold without adequate testing and without sufficient warning about the effect of multiple shocks for extended durations, particularly on people who are under the influence of drugs. They further claimed that the weapon, when used repeatedly, causes cardiac arrests and unnecessary deaths.
From Law.com:
See the full article here. Has anyone read the newest Grisham novel, "The Appeal"? If you have, you know why I ask after reading this story.Appeals courts in New Jersey and Texas on Thursday scrapped verdicts against drug maker Merck & Co. Inc. stemming from some of the earliest trials involving its once popular painkiller Vioxx.
A Texas court reversed a $26 million verdict against the drug maker stemming from the first trial. The court found no evidence that Robert Ernst suffered a fatal heart problem from a blood clot triggered by Vioxx. He had been taking the now-withdrawn drug for eight months before being stricken in May 2001.
His widow had won a $253 million verdict against New Jersey-based Merck in 2005, but Texas punitive damage caps later cut that to about $26 million.
Also Thursday, a New Jersey appeals court voided $9 million of the $13.9 million awarded to John McDarby in 2006 by a jury in Atlantic City.
The panel found that New Jersey's Product Liability Act was pre-empted by the federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. McDarby survived his 2004 heart attack.
From Law.com:
A Philadelphia jury awarded a $20.5 million verdict Friday to the parents of an 18-year-old college student who allegedly died from a liposuction procedure gone wrong.
Of the $20.5 million award, $15 million was in punitive damages.
The jury returned the verdict seven years to the day of the elective liposuction for Amy Fledderman, 18, sought for her chin, abdomen and flanks with plastic surgeon Dr. Richard P. Glunk on May 23, 2001, according to court papers.
Amy Fledderman's parents, Daniel H. and Colleen M. Fledderman, sobbed as the 12-member jury returned a unanimous verdict against Glunk and nurse anesthetist Edward DeStefano late Friday morning.
In the Fledderman v. Glunk wrongful death and survival action, the jury awarded $15 million in punitive damages; $3.5 million under the Survival Act; $2 million for Glunk allegedly negligently inflicting emotional distress on Colleen Fledderman; $20,000 under the Wrongful Death Act; and $5,000 for Glunk's alleged failure to obtain Amy Fledderman's informed consent.
Plaintiffs attorney Slade H. McLaughlin of The Beasley Firm said in an e-mail that the $15 million in punitive damages and $5.525 million in compensatory damages is within the 9-to-1 punitive damages cap ratio required by the U.S Supreme Court decision in Campbell v. State Farm. He also noted that the wrongful death damages are almost exactly equal to Fledderman's funeral costs, and the informed-consent damages were the costs of her surgery.
See the whole story here.A former pro football player who claimed that he sustained severe back injuries when he fell at a grocery store was awarded $1.1 million. In 2004, Jerry Aldridge, then 48, slipped and fell at the Brookshire Brother's Grocery in Jacksonville . Aldridge, who underwent a lumbar fusion and a cervical fusion after two years of conservative treatment, claimed that he slid on grease that had leaked from a rotisserie chicken container. At trial, he was awaiting medical approval to return to work. Defense counsel argued that neither the store nor its employees had actual or subjective awareness of the alleged grease spill prior to the miscue. The defense also pointed to medical records showing that Aldridge had preexisting back and neck problems, including a herniated disc.
Aldridge v. Brookshire Brother's Grocery
A jury awarded $550,000 to a man who injured his back and shoulder when he fell from a broken chair at a motel. John Karetas, a conductor with Norfolk Southern Inc., was staying at the McIntosh Inn in Allentown when the back of his chair broke, causing him to twist his back and fall on his shoulder. He sued the inn and his employer because he had taken a freight train from Harrisburg to Allentown, which required him to stay in the motel overnight. His lawyer argued that the back portion of the chair wasn't properly attached to the base. The jury found tMcIntosh Inn 70 percent liable and Norfolk Southern 30 liable.
Karetas v. Norfolk Southern Corp.
To see the full report, go to VerdictSearch.com
From InsuranceJournal.com:
A jury has awarded more than $4 million to a man who lost a leg in an accident while doing volunteer work at his Northampton County church.
Jay Benfield was installing telephone wires at St. John's United Church of Christ in Nazareth when a stack of drywall fell on him on Dec. 26, 2000. He was trapped overnight until workers found him the next day.
His left leg had to be amputated.
The jury deliberated about six hours last Thursday and Friday before announcing the verdict.
Jurors found that one contractor was 70 percent responsible for the accident, another contractor was 20 percent responsible and that Benfield was 10 percent responsible.
***The following is a statement from one of the plaintiff's attorneys, Mark K. Altemose, Esquire, of COHEN & FEELEY of Bethlehem, Pa.:
"My partner, Kelly Rambo, and I would like to thank all of you who expressed congratulations to us on our verdict. It means a great deal to both of us. We truly believe that justice prevailed in the case. Our client is a good man who was willing, from the very beginning--as I told the jury in my opening statement and again in closing--, to accept some responsibility for the accident. The Defendant Construction Manager was being completely unreasonable in denying any liability. The Specifications for the project incorporated a manufacturers' standard that required that drywall be stacked flat. Our experts testified that the purpose of the standard was to prevent this exact type of accident. Nevertheless, the Defendant maintained that stacking it on edge was still safe and that our client was the sole cause of the accident. Fortunately, the jury agreed with our position. Furthermore, the damages awarded were fair and reasonable by any standard of measurement. The jury and our client really deserve the credit.
Hopefully, the Defendant and other contractors who insist on stacking drywall on edge on construction sites will learn from this case so that no other person will endure the needless suffering that our client and his family have endured since this accident and will endure for the remainder of their lives. If so, then this case will be a victory not only for our client, but for PAAJ and all organizations with a similar mission to protect the public at large from needless harm.
You can find contact information for Cohen & Feeley here.Garland Reynolds and his wife, Bonnie, were awarded $3.5 million in connection with the 2002 rollover accident that claimed the life of their son, Matthew. The Reynolds sued GM in 2006, alleging that the design of the 1995 Chevrolet Blazer created stability issues that contributed to the fatal wreck. The jury awarded no punitive damages.
A jury of five men and three women deliberated for nearly three days in U.S. District Court in Gainesville, GA before finding GM at fault.
The jury said to General Motors that the Blazer is unsafe and it should not have been designed without proper stability, attorney for the plaintiff said.
On June 3, 2002, Bonnie Reynolds was driving a 1995 Chevy Blazer on the Interstate with her son in the front seat when the Blazer was struck by a drunk driver who lost control of his Pontiac Sunbird.
The Blazer flipped several times and Matthew Reynolds was ejected. He died the following day in an area hospital.
The driver who struck the Reynolds' car was later convicted of first-degree vehicular homicide and is serving a lengthy prison sentence.
Plaintiffs presented evidence at trial of other rollover accidents involving the Blazer. The plaintiffs contended that the make and model was built with too high a center of gravity for the wheel base, and that the "track," or distance between the wheels, should have been widened to prevent stability problems.
Blazers manufactured from 1995 through 2002 have similar design flaws. The Blazer was subsequently phased out in favor of the TrailBlazer, which has a wider wheelbase.
Evidence presented at trial called for a recall.
General Motors maintains that the vehicle is safe.
Company spokeswoman Geri Lama said GM was disappointed in the jury's verdict. They contend that the rollover accident is the sole fault of the drunk driver who struck the Blazer. GM is considering its options of an appeal.There was never an offer to settle, according to Plaintiffs attorneys.
GM was represented by a team of King & Spalding attorneys led by partner W. Ray Persons,
The case, in the Northern District of Georgia, is Garland Reynolds Jr. et al., v. General Motors Corp., No. 2:04-CV-106.
A woman who claimed two cervical herniations in a rear-ender with a cement truck recovered $345,729. Magda Vergara claimed that spasms and pain have forced her to stop working as a school teacher. She was at a light in her mid-sized SUV when she was struck by a Quickcrete Ready Mix truck. Its driver admitted liability. Vergara also sustained a laceration to her right eye. Vergara also claimed that she has suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder that includes flashbacks. Defense counsel argued that she only sustained soft-tissue injuries to her neck.
Garcia v. Quickcrete Ready Mix
A driver was awarded $275,000 for several disc injuries he sustained when his coupe was rear-ened by a tractor-trailer. Thomas J. Ferranti sued Willie Lee Rowell Jr., who was driving for Martin Trucking. He claimed Rowell failed to keep a proper lookout. Ferranti sustained herniations in his neck and back. The jury found that Rowell showed reckless indifference to the interest of others. Of the award, $100,000 was for punitive damages against Rowell. Martin Trucking was not found vicariously liable for punitive damages.
Ferranti v. Martin Trucking, LLC
To see the full report on this case go to VerdictSearch.com
A jury awarded $5.1 million to the family of a man who was struck and killed by a drunk driver while working at a road construction site. Donald Lee Fincher Jr. hit Frank Claborn as he was providing security for a construction company that was renovating the West Sam Houston Toll Road. His counsel argued that Fincher was nearly three times over the legal blood-alcohol limit. The family claimed that Claborn was conscious and in pain for about an hour before he died. Fincher stipulated to liability. He offered a consent judgment, but Claborn's wife wouldn't make a counter offer and wouldn't consider a settlement without a trial.
Claborn v. Fincher
A jury awarded $807,479 to a teenager who sustained a degloving injury in a rollover crash. Michael Buonaiuto Jr., then 15, was a passenger in his sister's car when he was struck by an employee of Aqualogic Pools & Innovative Pool Plastering. The defense admitted liability, but argued that he has recovered from his injuries. Michael underwent several surgeries. He claimed that he still experiences numbness in his thumb, limited flexation of his wrist when his fingers are closed and limited motor skills. He's still able to play guitar and sports, but at a diminished capacity.
Buonaiuto v. Stroud
To get the full report on this case, go to VerdictSearch.com.The following link is to a New York Times article regarding a comprehensive study of civil lawsuits that has found that most of the plaintiffs who decided to pass up a settlement offer and went to trial ended up getting less money than if they had taken that offer. The study was co-authored by Randall Kiser, who is an analyst at DecisionSet which is a consulting firm that advises clients on litigation decisions. When measuring how much money was recovered, 61% of the plaintiffs were wrong in deciding to not take a settlement and go to trial. However, defendants made the wrong decision by proceeding to trial only 24% of the time.
Approximately 80-92% of cases settle before they go to trial, however. The study was based upon a review of 2,054 cases that went to trial from 2002 to 2005.
Significantly, however, for plaintiffs who made the wrong decision and went to trial, it cost them about $43,000.00 on average. But, the defendants who made the wrong decision about going to trial were hit in a much greater amount, on average of 1.1 million dollars. Therefore, the errors that the defendants make are much more costly, despite the fact that the errors are made less often.
Also, the study indicated that factors such as rank of a lawyer’s law school and the size of a law firm were not dispositive in determining whether or not the lawyer and/or client made a mistake in going to trial. Therefore, as per the study, it does not really matter if you come from a big city firm or a small local firm, the same mistakes can be made.
Because we are experienced trial lawyers here at C&C Law, I immediately spotted a few defects with the study. First, the study stated that 15% of the cases the plaintiff received more than what was offered by the defendant, but less than what was demanded by the plaintiff before trial. This points out a fallacy in the ‘study’. A demand is a number to be worked from to reach an agreement. The fact that a plaintiff received less than their demand means NOTHING, if that demand did not represent what a client would accept as settlement, i.e., I demand $100,000.00 on a case I wish to settle for $50,000.00. After the trial, a jury awards met $57,000.00. I may have received $43K less than my ‘demand’, but I still resolved the case for what I thought was ‘full value’.
Also, a study like this, which gets printed in the NY Times is dangerous as it misinforms clients and potential clients and suggests that the problem is that the attorney is operating under a contingency fee agreement. (This has been a new ground for attack by tort (d)eformers; if they can’t prevent lawsuits and/or cap damages, then they will try to get limitations on contingency fee agreements, so people without money, who can’t pay hourly for an attorney, won’t be able to find an attorney because contingency fees have been curtailed or limited such that the claim is not worth the attorney risking his time and costs to prosecute.)
To see the entire article, go here.
