Trial Verdicts and Results
Partners G. John Veith, Esq. and Valerie Edwards, Esq., obtained a favorable verdict on January 21, 2023 in a motor vehicle accident in Bay County involving a pedestrian struck on sidewalk in the matter styled Plaintiff v. Jake Piekarski and Kimberly Piekarski. The case had been pulled from another well-known national defense firm and reassigned to Luks Santaniello for trial. By the time of the reassignment, critical deadlines had been missed including the deadline for disclosure of experts. Despite these setbacks, the defense succeeded in retaining experts for trial, although the experts were not permitted to conduct an in-person physical examination of the Plaintiff. The case was tried on damages only. Plaintiff waived her past medical expense and past and future wage loss claims. Due to a pretrial ruling by the court, the defense was not permitted to offer evidence that Norway, where plaintiff continued to reside, has socialized medicine.
At trial, Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award $9.7 million, including $3.4 million in future medical care costs, and $6.3 million in past and future pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement and loss of enjoyment of life. The jury returned a total verdict of $1.2M.The Plaintiff was a 21-year-old female exchange student attending the University of Minnesota from Kristiansand, Norway. Plaintiff, who had come to Panama City for spring break, was walking with two of her friends on the sidewalk at the corner of an intersection in order to cross the street to her hotel when she was struck by a motor vehicle. Surveillance video obtained from a nearby establishment captured the accident and showed the Plaintiff was thrown into the air and landed on the concrete approximately 15 to 20 feet away. The accident was caused by the defendant, Jake Piekarski, who fell asleep at the wheel after having driven all night across the country with some friends for spring break. Alcohol and drugs were not a factor in causing the accident. There was no legitimate basis to argue Plaintiff was comparatively at fault because the evidence showed she was properly on the sidewalk at the time of the accident. Prior to trial, the defendants admitted liability and the case was tried on the damages issues only.
As a result of the impact, Plaintiff claimed she sustained a permanent traumatic brain injury with post-concussive symptoms of impaired memory, attention span and language abilities. Plaintiff sustained a left orbital skull fracture, a full-thickness tear of her left anterior cruciate ligament, soft tissue injuries to her left shoulder and left hip. Plaintiff also claimed anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Plaintiff’s experts testified that, while an initial CT scan failed to show an organic injury to the brain from the impact, a subsequent MRI revealed a lesion on the right frontal lobe. Plaintiff’s experts claimed this lesion was a result of the accident, dismissing the radiologist’s finding that it could have been evidence of subcortical dysplasia, a congenital condition. Plaintiff’s doctors also opined that a DTI (diffuse tensor imaging) scan showed Plaintiff’s brain activity at more than two standard deviations downward. Plaintiff’s experts opined that their diagnosis of a permanent brain injury was based on the surveillance video of the accident together with the result of the DTI. Neuropsychological testing conducted in Norway, and in Plaintiff’s native language, failed to reveal any significant cognitive impairments. However, Plaintiff presented evidence of subsequent neuropsychological testing performed by Kevin Groom, a neuropsychologist hired by plaintiff’s counsel, which showed impairment, mostly in categories of testing involving language and speech function. The defense called Dr. Michael Herkov, who testified that the neuropsychological testing performed by Dr. Groom would be expected to include some findings of impairment because the testing was not conducted in Plaintiff’s native language.
Plaintiff’s left orbital fracture healed with conservative treatment and her left ACL was surgically repaired in Norway. Plaintiff’s retained orthopedic surgeon provided opinions that she would likely develop early onset osteoarthritis in her left knee which would likely require her to need a total knee replacement at a young age, followed by a revision surgery. The defense presented testimony of Dr. Troy Lowell, who opined that there was no medical evidence to support this claim. Dr. Lowell testified total knee replacements are typically only needed after ACL reconstructive surgery where there is also evidence of a meniscal injury. Neither the treating radiologist nor the surgeon in Norway had found evidence of any meniscal injury on the MRI scan.
Plaintiff also presented medical testimony from Dr. Deborah Simkin and Dr. Kevin Groom that she continued to suffer from PTSD as a result of the impact. The defense showed that Plaintiff had not been diagnosed with PTSD until 2018, one month after she had been the victim of a violent sexual assault, according to legal records from a Norwegian court, and based on medical records pre- and post-assault.
Plaintiff called Dr. Craig Lichtblau and Dr. Bernard Pettingill, Jr. to testify regarding her future medical care needs and expenses. Dr. Lichtblau opined that Plaintiff would need orthopedic, neurological and pain management care for life, including two surgeries on her left knee, injections and other pain management for her low back due to instability in her left knee, plastic surgery for her scarring, and in-home nursing care due to an anticipated early onset of dementia. Dr. Pettingill testified the present value of her future medical care was $3.4 million.
Read MoreOn February 17, 2023, Senior Partner, Juan A. Ruiz, Esq., and Junior Partner, Christine N. Gargano, Esq., obtained a defense verdict in Sumter County in a motor vehicle negligence matter styled Plaintiff v. Timothy Tredwell. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, Timothy Tredwell, as a result of alleged injuries she sustained in a motor vehicle accident on August 16, 2016. Plaintiff specifically claimed that Defendant was negligent by backing into her vehicle causing injuries to her back, right shoulder, and neck resulting in a cervical fusion. Plaintiff had a prior accident in 2008 resulting in injuries but denied any ongoing issue since 2011 and denied any prior right shoulder issues. Plaintiff presented her surgeon, expert life care planner, and expert radiologist at trial who all testified her injuries were permanent, future treatment was necessary, and all treatment and injuries sustained were caused by the 2016 accident.
Defendant admitted negligence. The defense argued that the low impact accident did not cause the injuries alleged but rather the 2008 accident did and as such all treatment was unrelated to the 2016 accident. Defense expert radiologist and compulsory medical examination doctor testified that the Plaintiff’s pre-existing injuries continued to worsen as result of the 2008 accident and was the cause of her treatment. Defense expert biomechanical expert also testified the impact from the 2016 accident could not have caused Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.
Plaintiff asked the Jury to award the Plaintiff $2.28 million for her past medicals of over $196,000, future medicals of over $401,000, and past and future pain and suffering of over $1.68 million. The defense asked the jury to give the Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and award her $26,000 for the costs of her initial emergency room visit to get checked out. The jury agreed with the defense and returned a defense verdict of $26,000 with no permanency, no futures, and no pain and suffering. Read More
Tampa Senior Partner Jeffrey Benson, Esq., obtained summary judgment in Citrus County in matter styled Garcia v. Pittman. Plaintiff claimed he was crushed by a falling tree branch on Defendant’s property and that defendant destroyed the evidence of the tort afterwards by cleaning up her yard.
After extensive discovery and briefing, the court denied Plaintiff’s spoliation claim going through a three prong analysis. First, Plaintiff had not proven that actual evidence of a tort ever existed, or, if it did exist that the specific tree branch that hit Plaintiff could have ever been identified. Second, the court ruled Defendant did not have a duty to preserve the tree debris. The court adopted our argument that Citrus County code required Defendant to clean up her yard. Third, the court found no viable theory of liability against Defendant. Plaintiff did NOT show that cleaning up the accident site deprived him of the ability to prove his case (because he never had a case). It was also noted that there is no indication Defendant acted in bad faith, as she called her insurer to investigate the scene before she hired a professional tree company to remove the branches.
The court found “there is not even a mere scintilla of evidence to suggest [Defendant] failed to maintain the trees…” and that “absent sanctions for spoliation, Plaintiff cannot meet his burden to establish the accident occurred due to [Defendant’s] failure to use reasonable care in maintaining her property.” Further, Defendant had no duty to warn because the dangerous condition was known to Plaintiff and was open and obvious to him. The trial court’s ruling was affirmed by the Fifth District Court of Appeal. Read More.
Tampa Senior Partner Jeffrey Benson, Esq., was granted summary judgment in trip and fall matter styled Ruiz v. JMJ Doral Oaks Et Al. Pro Se Plaintiff sued claiming she sustained a traumatic brain injury after tripping and falling down Defendant’s allegedly dark stairs. After extensive discovery, the court granted summary judgement holding that any allegations of a dangerous condition on the stairs was open and obvious. Read More.
Stuart Partner Nora Bailey, Esq., recently received a Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice in a wrongful death/trucking matter styled Gonzalez, Eloisa as Personal Representative of the E/O Torres v. S&M Services. The case arises from a trucking accident in Okeechobee, where an 18 year-old driver was unfortunately killed after striking the side of our insured tractor-trailer in an intersection. Plaintiff brought claims for his surviving parents, which is permitted under Florida’s Wrongful Death Act, but also pleaded claims for lost support and services for three (3) surviving siblings, including two minors. Ms. Bailey moved for summary judgment on the siblings’ claims, arguing that Plaintiff had provided no evidence to substantiate their lost support and services claims under section 768.18. After a hearing on the Motion, before a ruling, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all three (3) siblings’ claims with prejudice. This comes after Ms. Bailey was previously successful in the same case in securing a order dismissing the siblings’ mental anguish claims, which are not permitted under section 768.21. Read More
$1.7 M Sought | Morgan and Morgan | Jury Returned a complete Defense Verdict | Slip and Fall | Orange County.
On January 19, 2024, Managing Partner Tony Petrillo and Senior Partner Jeff Benson obtained a complete defense verdict in a premises liability matter styled Plaintiff 52 Year Old Landscaper v. Defendant Retail Store in Orange County, Florida. The Plaintiff claimed he slipped and fell as he was walking out of the Defendant's store due to accumulated water from an employee’s unauthorized use of a watering hose. The Plaintiff subsequently had a two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at C3-4 and C4-5. His orthopedic surgeon testified he would need another neck surgery due to adjacent level disc disease that would cost $75,000.00 and a separate low back surgery in the future that would cost $100,000.00. Plaintiff started trial claiming over $400,000.00 in past medical bills but ended trial conceding to $165,000.00 in past medical bills due to the defense proving that was the true reasonable and necessary value. The Defendant avoided any spoliation jury instruction because Plaintiff failed to prove that a duty to preserve surveillance video existed, even though a generic preservation letter was sent 18 days after the alleged incident. During closing arguments Plaintiff demanded $1.7 million. The jury returned a verdict finding no negligence. Read More.
This case arose out of a property insurance claim, in which the Plaintiff claimed that the roof of his property was damaged as a result of a windstorm that occurred on either July 19, 2021, February 7, 2020, or July 7, 2021. Plaintiff initially reported the claim with a date of loss of July 19, 2021. After retaining a public adjuster (PA), the PA changed the date of loss to February 7, 2020. Then, during his deposition, Plaintiff testified that he believed the correct date of loss was July 7, 2021. The claim had been denied because there was no storm created damage to the roof and no peril created opening which allowed water to enter the interior of the property. The court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in part as to there being no peril created opening, but found a question of fact as to whether there was storm damage to the roof. The parties proceeded to trial on December 8, 2023.
Plaintiff’s last demand before trial was for $90,000 global. On the morning of the first day of trial, the parties settled for nominal amount, as the jury was in the process of being convened from the jury assembly room. The case had been in litigation for 21 months at the time of trial/settlement and had been through considerable discovery, including depositions of both parties and their respective experts.
On July 31, 2024, Jessalea Shettle, Tampa Partner obtained a final summary judgment in a coverage matter entitled Steven Martin v. Progressive American Insurance Company. Plaintiff was struck by an underinsured motor vehicle while riding a motorcycle. Pre-suit, Progressive denied coverage under the subject insurance policy’s exclusion which excluded UM coverage on non-stacked policies when the insured was injured while occupying a motor vehicle the insured owned that was not listed on the subject policy. Plaintiff filed a declaratory action seeking UM coverage by challenging multiple aspects of the Progressive policy, including the validity of the UM Selection rejection form, and the use of multiple definitions of a single word within different sections of the policy. Plaintiff also attempted to circumvent the exclusion in the policy by arguing because he was ejected from the motorcycle and landed on the vehicle that hit him, he was in fact occupying an uninsured motor vehicle he did not own at the time of his injury. Ms. Shettle successfully defended the use multiple definitions for a word or phrase in different sections of the policy pursuant to the various applicable Florida Statutes and use of bolded vs. non bolded terms within the policy. In addition, Ms. Shettle defended the validity of the UM Selection form and successfully utilized the approval of the form by the Office of Insurance Regulation to prohibit the insured’s challenge of same. Ms. Shettle also successfully argued the conclusion that occupancy in an accident remains with the original vehicle despite an involuntary ejection from the vehicle. The Court held that because Plaintiff was riding a motorcycle he owned at the time of the initial impact, the subject exclusion applied, and upheld both Progressive’s form and policy language. Read More
Trucking Liability | 5-Day Jury Trial | Morgan & Morgan | $6M Demand | Net Verdict $14,500| PFS Previously Filed -Defendants Seeking Costs and Fees | Plaintiff found 60% At Fault | Taylor County
On April 12, 2024, Managing Partner John Bringardner, Esq., Junior Partner Tabitha Jackson, Esq. and Associate Alexis Oldham, Esq. obtained a favorable result in a trucking liability matter in Taylor County in matter styled Plaintiff v. Trucking Company and Defendant Driver. Plaintiff filed suit against a trucking company and its driver as a result of alleged injuries she sustained at the Foley Georgia Pacific Mill in Perry, Florida. Plaintiff worked as a ground rover, directing traffic in and out of the mill. At the time, she waved the defendant driver in to check his truck. While the defendant driver was having his paperwork and truck checked, Plaintiff waved in another vehicle (improperly and against her training). Just prior to the accident, two vehicles (including the defendant driver) were parked side by side in the thoroughfare. At all relevant times, there was a one vehicle in and one vehicle out policy. While both vehicles were side-by-side, Plaintiff waved in the defendant driver through the gate. Immediately after, the defendant driver’s trailer made contact with the second truck (improperly guided to the spot in the thoroughfare via Plaintiff). Plaintiff had caused herself to be “caught” between the two vehicles. Thankfully, she was able to avoid danger, as she rolled under the parked truck. The jury found that Plaintiff herself was 60% at fault in permitting two vehicles in the thoroughfare at the same time (against her training and policies), and responsible for directing and “waving” defendant driver into the gate. Jury found no permanency/pain and suffering.
Plaintiff claimed that the defendant driver operated his vehicle negligently at the mill, hit a parked vehicle, and as such – caused Plaintiff to be caught between the two vehicles. Plaintiff was forced to fall to the ground, sustaining (allegedly) permanent injuries. All parties to the suit admitted and CCTV showed the Plaintiff herself waved the Defendant driver into the mill. Evidence further proved that Plaintiff herself created the chaos and multiple vehicle situation at the time of incident.
Plaintiff demanded $6,000,000 during closing. The jury returned a verdict of $42,436.00. After setoffs for medical benefits from Plaintiff’s worker’s compensation carrier, the net verdict was $14,500. Defendants had previously filed a Proposal for Settlement exceeding the amount awarded, permitting Defendants to seek costs and fees pursuant to § 768.79, Florida Statutes. Read More
Senior Partner John Veith, Esq., and Associate Jack Garwood obtained a defense verdict on February 14, 2024 in a difficult trucking case involving a multi-vehicle accident. The case had been transferred from another well-known law firm and reassigned to Luks Santaniello for trial. The accident occurred in the southbound lanes of I-95 just south of Jacksonville and involved four separate vehicles. Three plaintiffs in two of the vehicles alleged severe injuries after being rear-ended. Mr. Veith’s client, who was driving a tractor trailer hauling a forklift with a total weight of about 40,000 lbs., struck the rear of a Chevrolet pick-up truck at a high rate of speed. The force of the first impact propelled the pick-up truck forward, causing that vehicle to hit another pick-up truck towing a U-Haul trailer and then continue on to hit a fully stopped Volkswagen Jetta. Despite the presumption of negligence, Mr. Veith’s client denied liability and alleged the pick-up truck changed lanes right in front of the semi, effectively cutting her off and eliminating the safe zone in front of the tractor trailer.
The case was bifurcated and only the liability issues were tried to a jury. At trial, the Plaintiffs argued that the operator of the semi was primarily at fault, claiming she was distracted by an accident that had just occurred in the far left lane ahead and, therefore, she failed to see the Chevrolet pick-up truck right in front of her. Defendant Kayworth, the driver of the Chevrolet pick-up truck, however, denied cutting off the semi and testified he had been in the center lane all the way from downtown Jacksonville. The defense called accident reconstruction expert Robert Ketchum P.E., who testified that the driver of the semi was not negligent and that accident was actually caused by the negligence of co-defendant Webster, the driver of a separate vehicle who had caused the accident in the far left lane, thereby setting in motion a chain reaction of collisions which none of the defendants could have avoided. Due to the entry of a default against Defendant Webster, the jury was instructed the Court had determined he was negligent and that his negligence was a contributing cause of the accident. The night before closing arguments, one of the Plaintiffs settled with the defendants. As a result, only the claims asserted by the two remaining Plaintiffs were given to the jury for deliberations. After four hours of deliberations, the jury returned a defense verdict finding Defendants Dever and Kayworth not negligent. Read More
Junior Partners Katherine E. McKinley and Zachary J. Brewer obtained a full defense verdict on April 24, 2024 in a defamation case styled Plaintiff v. YMCA, et al. Plaintiff was the 62 year old male chair of the board of advisors for a camp and one of the Defendants was a 20 year old female waterfront director of the camp. Defendant reported Plaintiff for kissing her on the face, making inappropriate jokes, and holding her inappropriately on a jet ski ride. The camp terminated Plaintiff’s volunteer status. Plaintiff sued the Defendants alleging his father’s death was the result of alleged defamation and sought damages for the loss of his father.
Plaintiff asserted that Defendant completely fabricated her complaints out of a political disagreement and/or to seek leverage in her employment. In arguments, Plaintiff blamed Defendant for the death of his father by suicide two months later and ultimately asked the jury to hold Defendants responsible for his father’s death, as well as alleged severe and permanent mental anguish, with physical manifestations.
The Court granted directed verdict to two Defendants. Plaintiff proceeded solely against two others. Following closing arguments, the jury deliberated for less than two hours and returned a complete Defense verdict establishing that Defendant had not defamed Plaintiff with her reports of sexual harassment. Read More
Martindale-Hubbell and martindale.com are registered trademarks, Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings is a trademark and Lawyers.com is a service mark of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under license. AV, BV and CV are registered certification marks and AV Preeminent and BV Distinguished are certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. Copyright 2009 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
by tdburns, llc. - website designer, ft. lauderdale, fl