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:

Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall

    8/27/2008
    James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
    Comments (0)

    Worker who lost leg in construction accident receives $13M

    A construction worker whose leg had to be amputated after it was crushed by falling beams recovered a $13 million settlement.

    In 2005, Timothy McGuire was standing near an 80-foot I-beam on the Harrah's casino construction site in Chester when an aerial boom operator hit the beam, causing a chain reaction of falling beams. They landed on McGuire's right leg, crushing it. After 16 surgeries, his leg ultimately had to be amputated above-the-knee.

    McGuire and his wife blamed general contractor T.N. Ward and subcontractors Samuel Grossi & Sons and E&R Erectors, arguing that they failed to ensure workers' safety. The plaintiffs also alleged the beams were improperly stored. Lawsuits against Harrah's Entertainment and Chester Downs were dismissed after the other parties agreed to the settlement.  The case was filed in Philadelphia County.

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

    At C&C Law, we have handled many construction site accidents in both Pennsylvania and New York.  See more information on the website relating to construction site accidents here and here.

8/27/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Boy blinded in ATV rollover gets $6M settlement

A 9-year-old boy blinded in an ATV (all terrain vehicle) accident received a $6 million settlement from his grandfather and his grandfather's businesses.

In 2005, Thomas Richard Stewart V was operating an adult-size ATV on a hunting preserve owned by his grandfather, Thomas Richard Stewart III, when the boy became startled and lost control of the vehicle. It flipped over and its handlebar lodged into Thomas' left eye, blinding him in both eyes. 

Thomas and his mother sued Stewart and his businesses, claiming they should not have allowed the boy to operate an ATV unsupervised. The defendants contended they weren't liable and argued that Thomas' father was responsible for the ATV at the time of the accident. The settlement was reached through mediation.  The case was out of Fayette County which is south of Pittsburgh.

The see the entire report on this case, go to VerdictSearch.com.

I've blogged about ATV accidents many times before.  See here and here.  If not careful, these "toys" can be very dangerous.

Vehicle and Automobile Accidents

Workers' Compensation

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.