We have handled thousands of cases and received millions of dollars in settlements and judgments. Here is a sample of some of the cases and awards we have gotten for our clients:
INJURED PEDESTRIAN VS. CASINO, EMPLOYEE NEGLIGENCE
Our client was struck by a shuttle bus while walking through the parking lot at Commerce Casino, and suffered serious injury. Commerce refused to take responsibility, and tried to blame our client by saying she had bent over to pick up an earring that had fallen out. By assembling a top-notch team of experts in the fields of accident reconstruction, safety engineering, physical medicine, neuropsychology, neurosurgery, occupational medicine, life care planning, economics, and jury consulting, we were able to secure our client an amazing and much-needed jury verdict of $13,155,718.00.
Case information: Nguyen vs. California Commerce Club and Braulio Reyes, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case # BC 240 182
INJURED SKIER VS. SKI RESORT, FALL ON DANGEROUS CONDITION
Our client was injured while skiing when he fell into an half pipe that had not been properly marked. He suffered serious injuries from the fall. We were able to recover $2,700,000.00 for our client.
This case presented a serious challenge to establish liability because skiing is a “participate at your own risk” activity, meaning that, because skiing is inherently dangerous and entirely voluntary, you assume the risk of being hurt when you participate. This was the first challenge that we overcame. Second, we also had to work around the liability waivers that all ski resorts require skiers to sign before hitting the slopes. These waivers say essentially that the ski resort is not responsible for any injuries that might occur, and that the skier assumes the risk of injury while participating.
We were able to overcome both of these challenges by showing that the ski resort altered the natural state of the slopes in a way that allowed for the presence of a dangerous on unanticipated condition, namely, the half pipe. Because this affirmative alteration occurred, the ski resort had a duty to warn of its presence. The failure to warn our client of the dangerous condition resulted in him being injured by the condition. Our advocacy convinced the ski resort that their liability was clear, and resulted in a large settlement to our client.
TENANTS VS. SLUMLORD, DEPLORABLE CONDITIONS
Our office helped 15 rent-control tenants fight against a slumlord who was trying to force them out so he could redevelop the property. The slumlord’s tactics included, among other things, intentionally shutting down the multi-story building’s elevators, even though he knew many of the tenants were elderly and disabled. The trial lasted 4 weeks, and the jury returned a verdict of $1,000,000 in punitive damages and $277,000 in additional damages. After an appeal to the Court of Appeal and another to the California Supreme Court, justice won the day, and the verdict stood.
Case information: Ollie Harrison, et al vs. Chit Yong, & Mayfair USA Corp, Los Angeles Superior Court Case # C 355-875
STUNTMEN VS. STUDIO, BURN INJURIES:
Our office represented a number of stuntmen who were injured while making a movie when the intentional explosion was set off too early and too large. Our office helped recover a $1,000,000 settlement for burn injuries, and were able to negotiate a set-aside of the lien asserted by the workers’ compensation lien. All the stuntmen made a full recovery.
Case information: Gregg Sargeant, et al, Vs. Cyborg II, Long Beach Superior Court, Case # 009819
CLIENT VS. MANUFACTURER, DEFECTIVE HEADREST:
We were able to secure $650,000.00 for our client who was injured when he was hit from behind while stopped at a light. His accident was made worse by a defective headrest. The manufacturer took responsibility for the injury rather than risk a massive public relations disaster.
AUTO VS. AUTO, SOFT-TISSUE REAR-END COLLISION:
Our client was rear-ended on the freeway and suffered a 2-3 mm disc bulge that necessitated neck surgery. The first offer was $100,000, which slowly increased until the day of trial. On the day of trial, the case settled for $499,000 on steps of the courthouse.
Case information: confidential settlement, Los Angeles Superior Court
MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT CASE RESULTS:
1. RECOVERY: $380,000.00
A motorcycle-riding client who suffered a broken leg when another driver turned left in front of him recovered $380,000.00 from the defendant, despite the defendant having an independent witness who stated that our client was speeding and contributed to the accident.
Case information: confidential settlement, Long Beach Superior Court
2. RECOVERY: $325,000.00
A motorcycle-riding client was riding behind a semi-truck that cut across his lane, causing him to go down. Client broke his wrist and had cuts on his leg that scarred. Our office negotiated a $325,000.00 settlement with the truck’s insurance company without the need to file a lawsuit.
3. RECOVERY: $300,000.00
A motorcycle-riding client who suffered a broken leg when another driver turned left in front of him received $300,000.00 policy-limits settlement based on excellent settlement advocacy..
4. RECOVERY: PAYMENT FOR LIFE
A motorcycle-riding client who was injured by a negligent driver now receives payments for life from a structured settlement we negotiated for him that involved the purchase of a lifelong annuity making periodic payments. Our client was unlicensed and uninsured when the accident occurred.
5. RECOVERY: SIX-FIGURE POLICY-LIMITS
A motorcycle-riding client obtained a six-figure policy limits settlement for a broken foot caused by a negligent driver, negotiated by our office without the need to file a lawsuit.
6. RECOVERY: $135,000.00
A motorcycle-riding client who suffered soft tissue injuries when another driver cut him off and caused him to come off of his motorcycle recovered $135,000.00. This case settled in 2010.
7. RECOVERY: $73,656.00
A motorcycle-riding client won a jury verdict of $73,656.00 for relatively minor injuries when a negligent driver clipped him as he rode down the street. Defendant insurance company asserted that our client was also negligent in that he was not paying attention, was driving too fast, and clearly must have been a bad driver because he had been involved in 13 other accidents and incidents, and 1 after the subject accident. They also tried to blame his injuries on those other accidents.
Case information: Calvin Shatto vs. Marin Haas McCarthy Santa Monica Superior Court Case # SC038696
INJURED CUSTOMER VS. WALMART, EMPLOYEE NEGLIGENCE
A Wal-Mart employee pushing a train of carts back into a store carelessly ran them into our client, causing him serious back injuries. Wal-Mart refused to take responsibility for its employee’s actions, and offered our client nothing for his injuries. They even tried to allege that he had jumped in front of the carts! After a 7-day jury trial, Wal-Mart was forced by a jury to take responsibility – to the tune of $309,000.00. Wal-Mart appealed, and took the case all the way to the California Supreme Court, but we beat them at each step along the way. This case caused Wal-Mart to change its policies as to how carts are brought in, and hopefully no one will ever be hurt in the same manner again.
Case information: Cardenas vs. Walmart. Victorville Superior Court, Case # VCV 011107.
AUTO VS. AUTO, LOW-IMPACT SOFT-TISSUE REAR-END COLLISION:
Client was hit while turning left by a vehicle that had run a red light. The injuries were soft-tissue, with the worst being an aggravation of a pre-existing hip injury. Our office negotiated a settlement for the policy limits of $250,000.00.
INJURED RESIDENT VS. MOBILE HOME PARK, TRIP-AND-FALL ON DANGEROUS CONDITION
Our client, a resident of a mobile home park, tripped on pipes that had been left outside of her home during a construction project and broke her ankle. The defense claimed that our client had been adequately warned about the presence of the construction materials, and that she more likely fallen over a barricade or simply tripped. Our office eventually obtained a generous settlement for our client in the amount of $102,500. The case was filed in Santa Monica Superior Court, and the settlement had a confidentiality clause, so the names cannot be disclosed.
FAMILY VS. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, NUISANCE (LOUD NOISE AT NIGHT):
While the Getty Museum was being built, our clients, who lived nearby, began to notice loud noises emanating from the pipes of their house at night, keeping them up all hours. The noises were eventually traced back to the Getty Museum nighttime construction work. The defendants were armed to the teeth with lawyers – 8 law firms in all. Our office was able to secure a $96,000 settlement for our sleep-deprived clients, who found new meaning in a good night’s sleep.
Case information: Mark & Louise Copeland vs. J. Paul Getty Trust, et al Santa Monica Superior Court Case # 030 955
AUTO VS. AUTO, TOUGH LIABILITY (LEFT-TURNING CLIENT)
Our office took on a very difficult case of an 87-year old woman who was hit by a red-light running driver while taking a left turn at a traffic light. California Vehicle Code 21801(a) establishes a presumption of fault against the left-turning driver, and absent objective proof such as a red light camera, such presumptions are nearly impossible to overcome. Nevertheless, we were able to put on a strong case for our client so as to overcome that presumption, and get her a victory at trial.
Case information: Slochem vs. Tennenbaum, Los Angeles Superior Court Case # C-433,067.
CUSTOMER VS. RESTAURANT, SLIP-AND-FALL, TOUGH LIABILITY (NO WITNESSES)
Our client had slipped and fallen and injured himself on the wet floor of a bathroom that had recently been mopped. The defense tried to claim that the restaurant always put up signs when they mopped, and that no one else had ever slipped in a similar manner in their restaurant. Our office put our investigators on the job, who went to the restaurant and photographed the custodian mopping the bathroom floor without a caution sign. Our team was also able to find another patron who had recently slipped in a similar manner, but managed to catch himself before he fell, thus preventing him from being injured. When all of this evidence was presented to the jury, they were able to see through the defense’s smoke screen and reach a just and fair verdict in favor of our client.
Case information: Ray Gay vs. Royale Restaurants, Inc., Ontario Superior Court, Case # CW-12801
AUTO VS. AUTO, LOW-IMPACT SOFT-TISSUE REAR-END COLLISION:
The defendant’s insurance company sought to freeze our client out of recovery by calling her accident a “low impact” and alleging that she didn’t get very hurt, when, in fact, she did. Defendant insurance company hired a chiropractor, orthopedist, biomechanic and an accident reconstruction to help peddle their tale. Our office brought in the client’s treating doctors and a biomechanic of our own. The jury returned a verdict of $40,864 for our client. Since the defendant’s insurance had rejected the client’s reasonable offer of $20,000 to settle her case and the verdict we obtained for her was higher, they were also obligated to pay for our client’s costs of trial, including all of the experts. This cost the insurance company another $25,000, and saved our client from having to pay those experts out of her recovery.
We were happy to send the important message to the defendant’s insurance company – that they should be fair to victims, even where there are only soft tissue injuries.
Case information: Katherine Marker vs. Robert Posada, Santa Monica Superior Court, Case # SC068481
WRONGFUL DEATH CASES:
Any case in which someone has been killed is a tragedy by which no sum of money can bring the person back or make up for their absence in their loved one’s lives. The purpose of obtaining money for those still living with the loss is to provide for a future filled with opportunity to better themselves in memory of he or she who died, because that’s how the person who lost his or her life would likely have wanted it.
Our client was killed when the car in which he was riding lost control and went under an 18-wheeler trailer on the highway. We secured a six-figure policy limits settlement for his heirs and loved ones.
Our clients received $750,000 from defendant’s insurance after a one car roll over caused the death of a relative.
Our client, an Alzheimer’s patient, was killed when he wandered off from the convalescent home that was being paid for care and watch over him. The facility was a lock-down facility, but failed to properly keep an eye on our client. The decedent’s family received a policy-limits settlement.
Our client was killed while riding his motorcycle on a mountain road. A car shoot out from a parked position on the curb, striking and killing our client. His father received a six figure policy limits settlement from the insurance company.
There are many other stories but the above reflect a diverse example of some of the cases that have gone to jury trial or settled favorably for the client.
Let us help you now. Call for a free consultation with an attorney (310) 393-2769