Jim and Carrie Carroll at Carroll and Carroll, P.C. represent the injured people of Pennsylvania and New York in Bradford, Sullivan, Tioga, Susquehanna, and Chemung counties in personal injury, premises liability, slip and fall, automobile accident and workers’ compensation cases Jim and Carrie Carroll at Carroll and Carroll, P.C. represent the injured people of Pennsylvania and New York in Bradford, Sullivan, Tioga, Susquehanna, and Chemung counties in personal injury, premises liability, slip and fall, automobile accident and workers’ compensation cases

Practice Areas


Blog

Personal Injury

view all

Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall

view all

Workers' Compensation

view all

Vehicle and Automobile Accidents

view all

General

view all

Legal News

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

Bias in Peer Review

Bradford County Employers Laying Off Workers

Death Benefits Not Mandatory for PA Car Insurance

Bradford County: Judge Beirne presiding

Armenia bans ATVs

Pennsylvania Senate confirms Beirne as Bradford County judge

View All

Legal Library

Personal Injury

More Info

Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall

More Info

Workers' Compensation

More Info

Vehicle and Automobile Accidents

More Info

Newsletters

More Info

General

More Info

Blog Category:

Personal Injury

12/11/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Pennsylvania Worker recovers for fall from ladder bought at Home Depot

A man who sustained a traumatic brain injury in a 25-foot fall from a ladder bought at a Home Depot store recovered $406,800. William Sohngen was using the Louisville extension ladder unattended while painting on the side of a two-story home. The base slid and he crashed to the ground because the rubber feet on the ladder's legs were worn down, he claimed.

The jury found that Home Depot was to blame because it sold the ladder and failed to mention that it had been in rental service for four years, which is against company policy. Sohngen also sued Louisville Ladder for defective design, but the jury found it wasn't negligent. Home Depot was found 60 percent liable and Sohngen was found 40 percent liable, which reduced the jury's $678,000 award.

To purchase a full report on this case, go to VerdictSearch.com.

12/5/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

$2 Million Verdict for Foreman Injured by Pipe Plug

The Legal Intelligencer (12/4, Needles) reported, "A federal jury entered the $2 million verdict against Vanderlans and Sons Inc., the manufacturer of the test plugs -- inflatable rubber stoppers that are placed in both ends of a pipe and inflated in order to test the pipe's airtightness -- before Judge J. Curtis Joyner in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 25" in favor of a "construction foreman who completely lost use of his right arm after pressure buildup caused a 'test plug' to shoot from the end of a pipe he was installing and pierce his hand." The defendant's attorney "said he felt the case should never have made it to a jury once it was determined that his client's product was not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law" and that "he will most likely file post-trial motions."


10/14/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Top Ten Jury Verdicts of 2007 are 25% lower than 2006

The total Top Ten awards for 2007 dropped 25 percent from 2006. This is 72 percent lower than in 2005. Last year's Top Ten includes several significant verdicts.

2007's #2 verdict was the largest negligent security award in the nation's history - $102.7 million to a man shot and paralyzed in the parking lot of a Miami strip club. The trial included an interesting battle over damages, with the defense arguing medical costs should be calculated based on care in Tunisia, where the plaintiff was from, while the plaintiff's attorneys argued he could not get adequate care in his native country.

The #3 verdict may well have longstanding implications, since it was the first large punitive damages award following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S.Ct. 1057, to place new limits on punitives. The Los Angeles jury ordered DaimlerChrysler to pay $5.2 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitives to a man run over by his own truck when a faulty transmission caused it to slip from park to reverse.

Last year's Top Ten also included two pharmaceutical cases. For the third year in a row, Merck was held liable for its widely-used painkiller Vioxx. In a significant breakthrough for plaintiffs' lawyers, a New Jersey jury awarded $47.5 million to a man who had suffered a heart attack after using the medication for just two months. The plaintiff's first trial had ended in a defense verdict, but he was granted a retrial based on new evidence reported in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that short-term Vioxx use could increase cardiac risk.

In another pharmaceutical case, a Nevada jury awarded $134 million, including $99 million in punitive damages, to three women who developed cancer after using hormone replacement medication produced by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. The 5,000 pending cases are based largely on a 2002 study concluding that women who use Prempro for five years have a 26 percent greater risk of developing breast cancer, a 29 percent greater risk of suffering a heart attack, a 41 percent greater chance of having a stroke and a 113 percent greater chance of having blood clots.

In the #1 verdict of 2007, a New York jury awarded $109 million in a medical malpractice case where the plaintiff's lawyer asked for just $18 million. The 34-year-old plaintiff suffered massive memory loss from a seizure caused by a botched diagnosis. The verdict, which was comprised entirely of compensatory damages, included $67 million for the wife's past and present loss of services.

That verdict marked New York's return to the Top Ten list after a two-year hiatus, and propelled the state into a first place tie with Texas for the most Top Ten verdicts (22) since 1995. California trails in a close third with 20.

Meanwhile, Florida is coming on strong with four Top Ten verdicts last year - the only state with more than one - putting it in fourth place, with 17 Top Ten verdicts since 1995.

* Punitive damages have also experienced a dramatic decline. The total punitive damages among the Top Ten verdicts in 2007 dropped 36 percent from 2006 - and this occurred after the total punitive awards had dropped 83 percent from 2005 to 2006.

* Punitive damages made up only 33 percent of total Top Ten awards in 2007, compared to 66 percent over the last 11 years


#1  $109 million verdict for brain-injured man

A New York jury awarded a brain-injured man and his wife $109 million after his lawyer asked for just $18 million. Even though he believed the medical arguments were making an impact on the jury, Wilkens said the most critical testimony was from Karen Dockery, the injured man's wife.

#2 $102.7M in Florida negligent security case

A Tunisian cruise ship waiter who is paralyzed from the waist down was awarded $102.7 million by a Florida jury this fall in the largest negligent security verdict ever.

#3 $50M punitive award sidesteps High Court ruling

In the first major punitive damages case since the U.S. Supreme Court placed new limits on punitive damages in February 2006, a Los Angeles jury ordered DaimlerChrysler to pay $5.2 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitives to a man run over by his own truck.

#4 Private plane crash yields $54M verdict

In a trial where the defense seemed to fold its case after two unsuccessful witnesses, a flight instructor and his student won a $54.5 million verdict for injuries they suffered in a private airplane crash.

#5 Nursing home to pay $54 million for resident who bled to death

In the largest personal injury verdict in state history, a New Mexico jury awarded $54 million to the family of a woman who bled to death in her nursing home.

#6 Family of brain-injured boy wins $50M

A Florida jury awarded $50 million to the family of a boy who was severely brain-injured when a pickup truck driven by a drunk driver crashed into his family's car.

#7 Exploding water heater brings $50M

An Alabama jury awarded $50 million to the family of a man who was killed by an exploding water heater, which the plaintiffs' lawyer likened to a "time bomb."

#8 $47.5 million Vioxx verdict helps prompt global settlement

Nine months before Merck reached a global settlement with thousands of Vioxx plaintiffs, a New Jersey jury awarded one man $47.5 million for a heart attack caused by taking the painkiller drug for just two months.

#9 Nevada woman wins $47.6 million in hormone therapy case

Three Nevada women won the biggest verdict to date in the ongoing hormone replacement therapy litigation against Wyeth, convincing a jury that the company knew its drugs caused breast cancer but failed to warn patients about the risks.

#10 $45 million for crash that killed unborn child and 9-year-old girl

In a case where the defendant's insurance company rejected a settlement offer for $200,000, a Florida jury awarded $45 million for the auto accident death of a woman's 9-year-old daughter and unborn child.


Thanks to Linda Sherman at L.S. Sherman Complex Litigation Specialists.
6/9/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Federal Court Jury Awards 6.2 Million Dollars in TASER-Related Death

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.


5/29/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

N.J. and Texas Courts Scrap Awards From Early Vioxx Cases

From Law.com:

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.

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.
5/27/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Jury Awards $20.5 Million for Fatal Liposuction

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.

Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall

    1/22/2009
    James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
    Comments (0)

    NYC to pay $2.75M for softball accident in school gym class

    The City of New York Department of Education must pay $2.75 million to a woman who sustained severe facial injuries in a softball accident four years ago, while attending one of the city's public schools.

    Chelise Navarro, now 20, was struck in the face by a swung bat during softball drills in gym class at the Bronx's Walton High School. She sued the department of education, alleging that her gym teacher was not supervising the drills. The defense cast blame on the girl who swung the bat, contending that the students had been warned not to execute full swings of the bat. It also contended that Navarro assumed the gym-class activity's inherent risk of injury, but the jury found that the department of education was liable for the accident.

    To see the full report go to VerdictSearch.com.

8/1/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Drunken man paralyzed after fall down stairs gets $17M

A New York jury awarded nearly $17 million to a man who sustained a paralyzing spinal injury after he tripped through the entrance of his Bronx residence. The plaintiff, Juan Santa Barbara, tripped on a door saddle, fell through his doorway, over a small wall and down a stairway, fracturing his spine. Santa Barbara sued his landlord, claiming that the saddle was unreasonably tall and constituted a tripping hazard. The landlord argued that the area was safe, and it also noted that Santa Barbara was intoxicated at the time of the incident.
The jury assigned 70-percent liability to the landlord and 30-percent liability to Santa Barbara. It awarded $24,162,000, but that award was reduced by 30 percent, to reflect Santa Barbara's share of the fault.

Santa Barbara v. Migdol Realty Management, LLC

7/6/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Former pro football player gets $1.1M for fall in store

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

To see the full report on this case, go to VerdictSearch.com

6/20/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Family of resident who died from sepsis awarded $2M

A jury returned a $2 million verdict for the death of a 104-year-old nursing home resident caused by decubitis ulcers. Mary Adams died after eight weeks at Villa Valencia Healthcare Center, a skilled nursing facility in Laguna Hills. She was in the facility for physical therapy following hospitalization for a broken arm. While at Villa Villencia, she developed Stage IV decubitus ulcers on both heels. Her family sued the owner of the nursing home, claiming Adams was neglected there. They sought between $1 million and $5 million in damages. The jury's award included $1 million in punitive damages. According to defense counsel, the award will be reduced to $1.25 million per MICRA.

Adams v. Sunrise Senior Living Services Inc.
 
To see the full report on this case, go to VerdictSearch.com

6/18/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Hotel guest injured when chair broke awarded $550,000

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


6/3/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Pa. Church Volunteer Who Lost Leg in Accident Awarded $4 Million

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.
5/23/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

City hit with $3.8M verdict for woman's pothole fall

A jury awarded $3.8 million to a woman who sustained a fractured hip after stepping into a pothole at a Bronx intersection. Janie Utsey, 77 at the time of the October 2002 incident, alleged that the pothole developed after city workers failed to properly seal a prior gap in the road. She claimed that the gap reopened during the 17 months that preceded her injury. The city contended that the hole was connected to the cement platform of a bus stop and that, as such, it could not be filled in the conventional manner that Utsey had suggested. It also challenged Utsey's credibility by noting that she had provided differing accounts of the incident, but the jury was not swayed.

Get the full report on Utsey v. City N.Y. from Verdict Search here.

Vehicle and Automobile Accidents

    5/6/2009
    James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
    Comments (0)

    Pennsylvania Car Accident Plaintiff's award of $400,000 Upheld On Appeal

    Below is the link to the Pennsylvania Superior Court decision from May 1, 2009 in Dolan v. Fissell which deals with an appeal by the Defendant from an arbitration award in favor of the plaintiff for $28,220.

    This is a case arising from a car accident and, after the appeal by the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed a stipulation under Rule 1311.1 to proceed by medical reports and limit the award of the jury trial to $25,000. Prior to trial the Defense exam was favorable to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff withdrew the 1311.1 filing and also presented the defense expert as a Plaintiff expert at the trial.

    The jury awarded $434,757.25. The Defendant appealed and the published decision by Judge Klein (joined by Judges Shogun and McEwen P.J.E.) holds that the trial court in Chester County did not commit error in allowing the Plaintiff
    to withdraw the stipulation to proceed on medical reports and limit her recovery to $25,000 nor in allowing the expert initially retained by the Defense to testify for the Plaintiff.

    http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a04011_09.pdf

    Thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper for this information.
9/8/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Driver awarded for neck injuries in low speed rear-end accident

A jury awarded $1.05 million to a woman who sustained cervical herniations in a three-car rear-ender. Carol Hewett sustained three disc bulges, two of which herniated, in the low-speed crash.

Her biomechanics expert testified that the rigid chassis of Hewett's pickup truck caused all of the force of the collisions to transfer into Hewett's cab. Although the speed of the vehicle that caused the initial crash was low, the change in velocity that Hewett's neck experienced was significant.

Hewett, who's an attorney, was awarded $113,000 for her past and future lost earnings.

Although this is a Florida case, I've blogged about it to demonstrate that minor or low speed impact cases can be successful if you have the right set of facts, a good trial lawyer and good experts.  Also, this case demonstrates that people can actually be seriously injured in low speed car accidents.

To see the full report of this case, go to VerdictSearch.com at Hewett v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

7/8/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Federal Verdict Against GM in Rollover Lawsuit

A jury found General Motors negligent in a rollover crash that killed a 14-year-old boy, awarding what may be a record amount to the parents who brought a lawsuit in federal court against the auto maker. The trial lasted two weeks.  

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.


7/6/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Woman awarded $345k for injuries in rear-end automobile accident

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

To see the full report on this case, go to VerdictSearch.com

6/30/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Teen injured in near-fatal crash gets $14.8M

A teenager who was seriously injured in a car crash was awarded $14.8 million, and his mother, who was driving the car, recovered $270,000 on her bystander emotional distress claim. In 2005, Kyle Tilton, then 14, was in the passenger seat of a car driven by his mother, Charlotte Tilton, on State Route 62 in Yucca Valley. As she made a left turn, the car was broadsided on Kyle's side by a Southern California Gas Co. truck. Kyle suffered life-threatening injuries, including a collapsed lung and lacerations to his scalp, spleen and liver. He also suffered a head injury, which caused cognitive impairments. Southern California Gas Co. admitted liability, but contended that Kyle had made a good recovery.

Tilton v. Southern California Gas Co.
 
To see the full report of this case, go to VerdictSearch.com

6/20/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

School liable for teen's car crash after going to drinking party

A man who was rendered a quadriplegic as a teenager in a high-speed crash involving alcohol recovered nearly $13 million. Gabriel Maynoldi was 17 in 2001 when he and another teen crashed into a tree after leaving a high school party where they had been drinking. His family sued Archbishop Coleman F. Carroll High School and the Archdiocese of Miami because the principal and dance coach were at the party and were well aware of the students getting drunk in front of them. The principal and administrative officials also announced the party over the school public address system and allowed students to hand out flyers, with depictions of liquor bottles, that advertised the party. The jury awarded $55.8 million, but it was reduced because of comparative negligence finds against Maynoldi, his parents and non-party defendants. The school and Archdiocese were found 25 percent liable.

Maynoldi v. Archbishop Coleman F. Carroll High School Inc.
 
To see the full report of this case, go to VerdictSearch.com

6/18/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Tractor-trailer rear-ender results in punitive damages award

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


6/14/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Family awarded $5.1 for man killed by drunk driver at work site

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


6/9/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Jury awards boy for hand degloving in crash

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.

General

    8/8/2008
    James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
    Comments (1)

    Study finds settling is better than going to trial

    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.