Truck driver, high on marihuana, kills 14-year-old girl:
A woman asked for my help because her 14 year old daughter had been killed as the result of an automobile accident. Her daughter had been a passenger in a small pickup truck which pulled onto a highway into the path of a semi‑truck‑trailer. Other lawyers she had gone to had not been able to help her in making a claim against the driver of the semi‑truck.
As the result of my investigation, I was able to prove that the driver of the semi-truck was high on marijuana at the time of the crash, and that his response to the pickup pulling out in front of him was delayed for 4 seconds as the result of the effects of the marijuana.
Negligent hiring and training by trucking company
I was also able to prove that the trucking company which hired that driver had hired him even though it was aware that he had failed a drug test the previous year and had served time in prison as a result. I also proved that the trucking company knew that the driver was as convicted felon and that he was still on parole. The trucking company knew the toll free telephone number of truck driver's parole officer, but the company never contacted the parole officer.
I proved that if the company had contacted the local Department of Corrections, office of Probation and Parole, it would have learned that the driver had been and out of prison over the previous 21 years, and that he had failed 7 drug tests over the prior year -- in short, the trucking company was negligent for hiring the truck driver and with entrusting him with a 70,000 semi-truck-trailer rig to drive despite his history of drug abuse.
I obtained a pretrial ruling from the presiding judge in the case to the effect that the mother of the girl killed in the crash would be able to make a claim for punitive damages against the truck driver, and that the trucking company would be liable for those damages. As a result, I was able to obtain a substantial settlement for that mother, and the emotional closure that came with holding the trucker and his employer accountable.
Proving that a man struck and killed by a drunk driver had already been struck by a hit-and-run driver and left lying in the road, paralyzed, before being struck by the drunk driver.
A young man was found dead in a rural road, the apparent victim of a drunk driver. Through my investigation, I was able to prove that the victim had first been struck from behind by a hit‑and‑run driver, leaving him paralyzed and laying in the road before the drunk driver struck him. Autopsy xrays confirmed a fracture to the man's thigh bone which would only be caused while he had been standing and not from being run over.
Uninsured motorist insurance applies to pay claims against uninsured motorists who cause injuries. The insurance applies to hit-and-run claims. As the result, I was able to obtain a substantial uninsured motorist settlement for the parents of this victim because the victim had been struck by a hit-and-run driver.
Proving that an intoxicated driver did not cause the crash which took the life of his passenger, who was best friend.
A young man was involved in an automobile accident at an intersection while making a left turn late at night. The crash claimed the life of his passenger, who was his best friend. The issue was whether that young driver or the driver of an oncoming pickup truck was primarily responsible for causing the crash.
Through the use of an accident reconstruction expert, I was able to prove that the oncoming pickup truck was traveling at 74 mph in a 45 mph zone. The young driver had started his left turn when the pickup driver was over 300 feet away. If the pickup driver had been going close to the speed limit, the young driver would have completed his left turn and gone onto the intersecting street before the pickup truck ever reached the intersection.
Also, as the result of the crash, the small Chevrolet Geo that the young man driving was pushed backward
115 feet, all while its engine and transmission were dragging on the ground, and with the front wheels flattened and twisted outward. It was thus clear that the pickup truck driver had caused the crash.
Proving that a young man, who suffered permanent brain injuries in a violent crash, was a passenger in his pickup truck, not the driver, who negligently caused the accident.
My clients' son was a young who man suffered serious, permanent brain injuries as the result of a violent two‑vehicle crash. The issue was whether he or his close friend was the driver of the pickup truck they were in, which caused the crash.
My client's son was unable to remember the accident and his close friend had died in the crash. The police initially concluded that my clients' son (the brain injured man) was the driver and the insurance company for the truck denied his claim.
Through an accident reconstruction, which included the purchase of an identical Ford Bronco II truck and using a man of the same physical size as my client's son, I was able to prove that the injuries to my client didn't match up with the physical components of the interior of the truck, and that the injuries which caused the death of his friend must have resulted from him being the driver. We also proved that the location of my client's shoe, found behind the second vehicle after the crash, was consistent with his having been the passenger, rather than the driver of the pickup truck. And we proved that the location of my client as a passenger on the side of the truck which took the brunt of the crash was the reason he was not ejected from the truck, while his friend was ejected, which was consistent with him being the driver. As a result, we were able to obtain a substantial settlement against the insurer of the Ford Bronco.
Farm hand suffers serious injury caused by defective conveyor.
A farm hand was asked to make a repair to a motor that ran a conveyor belt in a barn. While making the repair, the conveyor belt motor started spontaneously, causing the conveyor belt to start up and my client fell. As my client fell, his hand became caught in the side of the conveyor, causing serious tears to the tendons of his rotator cuff.
I was able to prove that the owner of the farm was negligent in causing a defective and faulty motor for the conveyor to spontaneously start, due to a negligent electrical hookup. The injuries to my client were very serious, as one of his tendons was completely torn away from the shoulder bone (the humerus) and required a surgical repair which still left him quite permanently disabled for his left arm. I used a medical illustration to help a jury understand the magnitude of the injury and the surgical procedure, and obtained a substantial verdict.
Use of medical illustration to educate a jury of the seriousness shoulder injury my client suffered, requiring shoulder replacement surgery.
I represented a man whose shoulder was so badly injured in a vehicle crash that he had to undergo a shoulder replacement surgery. I used a medical illustration to help a jury understand the injury and surgical procedure and obtained a substantial settlement.