Verdicts & Settlements

D.L.M., a 17-year-old, was killed while walking home from his girlfriend’s home. Angry at her boyfriend, the girlfriend used her parents’ vehicle in an attempt to scare D.L.M. The girlfriend claimed to have lost control of the vehicle and accidentally struck D.L.M. at a high rate of speed. He died at the scene of the accident, leaving behind his mother, father, and twin brother. The girlfriend left the scene of the accident and later tried to hide the accident, claiming that the damage to her parents’ vehicle was the result of striking a fence. D.L.M.’s parents brought a lawsuit against the girl for the wrongful death of their son. They also sued her parents for negligent entrustment of the vehicle to her when it was learned that the daughter should not have been given the keys due to multiple prior traffic violations.

W.B.K., a passenger in a recreational vehicle, was severely injured when the R.V. struck the back of a slow-moving MoDOT truck, which was the tailing truck of a paint-striping operation. The accident occurred after the driver of a Schneider tractor-trailer passed the R.V. at a high rate of speed, then cut off the R.V. The driver of the R.V. was then blocked from seeing the slow-moving MoDOT truck ahead. At the last possible moment, the Schneider truck driver negligently jerked his wheel and changed lanes, leaving the vulnerable R.V. no time to avoid striking the MoDOT truck. The R.V. rolled over as it left the highway. W.B.K. sustained injuries. After a six-month hospital stay, she died as a result of her injuries.

Her survivors reached confidential settlements with Schneider and the driver of the R.V. They later brought suit for negligence against MoDOT when it was learned that it had violated its own internal safety policies by placing the slow-moving truck with a directional arrow in the lane of travel instead of placing it on the shoulder, where it would have been safer and more visible to oncoming traffic.

During heavy traffic conditions during President Donald Trump’s visit to Springfield on August 30, 2017, the defendant driver was stuck in traffic on southbound U.S. 65. The defendant driver attempted to make a U-turn, but failed to yield to northbound traffic, which resulted in a collision. The Plaintiff was injured, and her husband received fatal injuries and died as a result of them. The airbag also failed to deploy on a directed frontal collision. The case involved multiple claims and multiple defendants, with a wide variety of insurance companies at interest.

Operator of an A.T.V. was traumatically injured and killed when the vehicle suddenly sped out of control, struck a rock, and overturned. The accident occurred after the owner of the A.T.V. modified the factory throttle and then allowed the victim to operate the vehicle without any training or warning that the vehicle throttle had been modified. The defendant’s insurance company denied the case, claiming that the victim was an experienced rider and was aware of the risks. A confidential settlement was later reached at mediation, prior to trial.

A motorcycle rider was traveling through an intersection when the defendant failed to stop for a stop sign. The resulting T-bone collision caused severe injury to the motorcyclist, including but not limited to a fractured right femur, fractured left tibia, transected/torn thoracic aorta, fractured ribs, lacerated spleen, left knee torn ACL, and severe injury to the soft tissues of the back and neck. Medical treatment involved orthopedic surgeries and an open-heart procedure to repair the aorta. This man was a veteran, so his medical care was split between VA facilities and private providers.

A man driving a moving truck, along with his wife, who was a passenger, were seriously injured when a driver for an armored trucking company drove into the rear of his vehicle on I-44 in Oklahoma. The clients were operating their moving truck lawfully and within their lane when the semi-tractor trailer slammed into them from the rear. The impact forced their vehicle off the roadway and caused it to overturn. The husband sustained a mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) and multiple orthopedic injuries. The wife sustained a concussion and a whiplash injury. The client filed suit in federal court in Oklahoma to obtain jurisdiction over the foreign corporation.

The key to resolving the case in favor of the clients was hiring and retaining the best expert witnesses for the clients’ specific injuries: a medical doctor highly experienced in traumatic injuries; a neuropsychologist experienced in testifying about the long-term, debilitating cognitive effects of a mild traumatic brain injury (TBI); a vocational expert with significant experience in evaluating an injury victim’s vocational losses as they relate to future work/employment; and an economist to present the total economic impact of future damages. We also retained the best experts in the fields of accident reconstruction and highway/trucking safety.

A 29-year-old career Army soldier sustained a fractured pelvis in a trucking accident when the driver of his car swerved to miss a Prime semi truck that was illegally parked on a highway entrance ramp. When the driver swerved, he lost control and spun onto the highway and into the path of oncoming traffic. The vehicle was struck, resulting in a multi-vehicle collision. The client filed a lawsuit against Prime Trucking when it was learned that the company’s driver had experienced multiple mechanical failures prior to stopping on the highway entrance ramp. The driver had been instructed by the company to continue operating the truck despite knowing it was not safe to do so. The Prime truck eventually broke down on a dangerous, blind curve.

A 49-year-old career truck driver was seriously injured when a driver for a Canadian trucking company drove into the rear of his semi on I-44 in Oklahoma during an over-extended trip from Canada to California. The client was off duty in the sleeper berth while his co-driver operated the truck. When the fully loaded Paquin truck and trailer struck from the rear, the force of the collision threw the client into the windshield, causing him to sustain a severe injury to his brain and cranial nerves as well as multiple orthopedic injuries.

The client filed suit in federal court in Oklahoma to obtain jurisdiction over the foreign corporation. The lawsuit involved many complex legal issues, including suits against foreign entities and international law, electronic discovery issues in a trucking case, and wrongful destruction or spoliation of evidence. In addition to money damages recovered from the negligent trucking company, C.E.C. brought an action to recover workers’ compensation benefits against his employer.

An intoxicated driver, while trying to frighten and intimidate the plaintiff, lost control of his vehicle and struck the plaintiff. The victim was a pedestrian on foot. The collision resulted in a broken hand and a torn shoulder which required surgery to repair. The defendant fled the scene; however, an investigation led to his stop and arrest. He was charged for driving under the influence, vehicular assault, and leaving the scene of an injury accident.

This was a collision between a vehicle and pedestrian, as the Plaintiff crossed the street in the crosswalk during daylight hours. The evidence was that the driver became distracted by her cell phone as she approached the intersection and did not see the traffic light turn red. The pedestrian was in the middle of crossing when it became apparent the vehicle was not going to stop. She tried to move out of the vehicle’s path, but it was moving too fast. The impact threw her to the ground, and she received injuries to her head, neck and back.

This T-bone accident caused a whiplash neck and back injury to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had previously been treated and recovered from neck and back injuries several years earlier. The defendant’s insurance company tried to use that fact as an excuse to deny the claim. The law in Missouri does not support such a denial. Through the use of expert medical witnesses, the plaintiff was able to show that this collision worsened and exacerbated her neck and back condition, causing new injuries and resulting in the need for medical care and treatment.

This was not a large case, but it was an important case because it was yet another example of a defendant and her insurance company refusing to accept responsibility.

The defendant was driving too fast in heavy traffic and wet road conditions, resulting in her sliding and striking the plaintiff from the rear. This caused a whiplash injury and approximately $1,300 in medical costs. The Plaintiff had to continue working at her very physical job in considerable pain. The insurance company (which is always pulling the purse strings in these sorts of cases) initially denied the claim because the plaintiff “stopped too fast” and because she did not get “immediate” medical care.

At trial, the defendant and her attorney continually pointed their fingers elsewhere. They blamed the plaintiff for slowing down, blamed the traffic ahead of the Plaintiff, and even blamed the “move over” law, which the defendant claimed forced her to switch lanes because a police officer was on the side of the road, even though it was not safe to change lanes.

In the end, the jury saw the truth and held the defense responsible. This was a clear case in which the defense team (driver, defense lawyer and insurance company) refused to accept full and genuine responsibility for the damages caused; however, the jury rightly did not let them get away with it.

A young motorist was driving to school early in the morning when he entered a work zone that was improperly closed by the highway department. Due to improper sign placement and lane closures, the motorist was directed into the wrong lane of travel, resulting in a head-on collision. The collision caused severe orthopedic injuries resulting in the need for multiple surgical interventions. The client filed suit in state court, and the lawsuit involved many complex legal issues. Ultimately we were able to obtain a settlement for the client despite an allegation that he was at fault for driving in the wrong lane.

The Employee was a janitor at a high school and was seriously injured when a student was running and collided with him, knocking him to the ground. He sustained a torn shoulder, fractured vertebra, and a concussion/closed head injury. The Employer/Insurer tried to dispute the injuries, calling some of them pre-existing. The case went to trial, and the Employee was awarded the maximum benefits under the law, plus medical care to remain open for life.

A large defect in a sidewalk caused the plaintiff to trip and fall and be severely injured. The investigation revealed that the defective condition had been left unrepaired for 14 months prior to the injury. The defense argued that the plaintiff should have known of the defective condition, because she had walked on the sidewalk once previously. Evidence also revealed that the sidewalk had poor lighting. The plaintiff sustained a fractured humerus and underwent shoulder replacement surgery. After three months of physical therapy, the plaintiff was left with permanent impairment and limited range of motion in the shoulder.

D.J.B., a 42-year-old registered nurse who was visiting the Springfield-Branson area with her husband, decided to stay at a local hotel that was close to the Bass Pro Shop. The next morning, as she pulled the iron and ironing board from the closet, a hypodermic syringe fell out of the ironing board and stuck in her foot. Through testing, the syringe was found to contain illicit drugs. D.J.B. later contracted hepatitis C, an incurable form of the disease, thus ending her nursing career.

The defendant accused the client of using drugs in an attempt to avoid responsibility. When that failed, the defendant also alleged that D.J.B. had contracted the disease through her work as an R.N. D.J.B. brought a negligence lawsuit against the hotel owners and against the national franchise it was affiliated with, alleging that the hotel cleaning staff was not able to clean the rooms properly because of pressure from the management to complete the cleaning of rooms at an unreasonably quick pace. The staff was forced to ignore well-known and established standards for hotel safety. Had the hotel followed customary standards, the syringe would have been discovered and removed from the premises.