Skip to main content

verdicts

Case:
Plaintiff v. TST Trucking, Inc., et al.
Practice Area:
Attorney(s) :
Plaintiff Counsel:
The Bottaro Law Firm, LLC
Result:
Favorable Verdict
Summary:

$875K Final pretrial demand | jury awarded $27K. New England trial team convinced a jury to see things their way and deny a Plaintiff a highly inflated claim for damages.

On November 4, 2024, Boston Managing Partner Paul Michienzie and Rhode Island Partner David Maglio obtained a favorable verdict in a trucking liability matter styled Plaintiff v. v. TST Trucking, Inc., et al.

In 2017, the Plaintiff suffered a disc herniation while participating in a CrossFit workout and underwent a surgery (L 4/5 discectomy and laminectomy) to repair the injury. Subsequently, in 2018, she was rear ended by a fully loaded tractor trailer driven by the insured driver/Defendant. Despite being diagnosed with a lumbar strain as a result of the accident, Plaintiff claimed the accident caused further, permanent injury to her back. Adding further complexity to the matter, Plaintiff injured her back two more times after the accident: once in 2019 and once in 2020, ultimately undergoing a second surgery in 2020 to repair a further disc herniation. 

Plaintiff claimed medical bills of $92,000 for the second alleged surgery and related care, and projected future medical costs of over $310,000 for treatment and for a spinal fusion. Her claims also included requests for compensation due to pain and suffering, leading to a final pretrial demand of $875,000. The Defendant conceded liability for the motor vehicle accident, but denied that it caused the extent of injury that the Plaintiff claimed. To the contrary, our attorneys and medical expert successfully demonstrated to the jury that the Plaintiff’s own timeline proved her reherniation was caused by the additional injuries that happened after the motor vehicle accident. Any additional costs therefore were not the responsibility of the Defendant.

Through careful analysis of Plaintiff’s injury history combined with compelling testimony of the Defense medical expert, our team successfully limited the damage award to compensate Plaintiff only for the actual cost of treatment related to the motor vehicle accident. Significantly, the jury did not award damages for any further treatment or surgery.

 Importantly, as a result of pre-trial Motions in Limine, the Court excluded all evidence of liability related to the cause of the accident and limited Plaintiff’s introduction of medical bills. In the end, the jury award totaled $27,000 or less than 5% of the amount sought by Plaintiff in the trial.

Case:
Plaintiff v. CWC Transport
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Morgan & Morgan (David Henry)
Result:
Favorable Verdict
Summary:
On October 6, 2023, Partners Jim Sparkman, Esq., Meghan Theodore, Esq., and Matthew Moschell, Esq., obtained a favorable verdict in trucking liability matter styled Plaintiff v. CWC Transport. Sparkman (Boca Raton), Theodore and Moschell (Tampa) defended a gasoline tanker company and its driver against a $3 million dollar claim with a cervical disc replacement. The jury found the plaintiff 65% at fault (the defense urged 50%), reduced the medical bills from $125,000 to $95,000, found no permanent injury, and rejected the 57-year-old parks and recreation supervisor’s claim for $171,000 in future life care damages. The team defended this low speed, sideswipe impact that occurred by gas pumps with a neurosurgical CME, an interventional radiological expert, and a biomedical engineer. The Plaintiff presented a chiropractor and a medical doctor, an Oxford trained trauma surgeon, and a life care planner. Read More.
Case:
Plaintiff v. Smith Transportation, Inc., et al.
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Hoskins Turco Lloyd and Lloyd 
Result:
Motion to Dismiss Granted
Summary:
Stuart Partner Nora Bailey prevailed on a Motion to Dismiss in a trucking/personal injury matter styled Plaintiff v. Smith Transportation, Inc. Our client, a transportation broker, was sued for personal injuries after the Plaintiff was injured while unloading a truck carrying a load that our client had brokered. We obtained a dismissal of the counts against our client via a Motion to Dismiss. Our Motion was based upon the fact that the tort claims against our client arose from services provided as a transportation broker and were accordingly preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). The trial court agreed and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims against Smith Transportation in their entirety. Read More.
Case:
Gonzalez, Eloisa E/O Torres v. S&M Services
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Hoskins Turco Lloyd & Lloyd (Mark Urban)
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice after summary judgment filed and argued
Summary:

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

Case:
Plaintiff v. Trucking Company and Defendant Driver 
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Morgan & Morgan (Brian McClain, Jeff Humphries, Brandi A. Gartrell) 
Result:
Net Defense Verdict $14,500
Summary:

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

Case:
Plaintiffs v. Susan Dever, West Side Transport, Inc., Andrew Kayworth, Comm. Source Data, Inc., Domonic Webster, and IMR Development Corp. 
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Glober + Glober, Attorneys, P.A.; and Winters & Yonker, P.A.
Result:
Defense Verdict 
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:

Managing Partner Dan Santaniello and Miami Junior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte received a defense verdict on December 3, 2015 in a traumatic brain injury Trucking liability lawsuit. Plaintiff, a 37 year old male was involved in a catastrophic intersection accident with an 18 wheeler semi-truck operated by the Defendant driver. Plaintiff’s vehicle was completely destroyed due to the severe impact and the Plaintiff had to be extracted from the vehicle by first responders using the jaws-of-life.  After Plaintiff’s release from the hospital, the Plaintiff underwent pain therapy, orthopedic therapy, and began treating with a neurologist Nicholas Suite, MD and neuro-psychologist Alejandro Arias, Psy.D. for alleged traumatic brain injury sustained during the accident. Read More

Case:
Vanliner Insurance Co. v. ABF Freight System (USDC-MDFL, 2012)
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:
SUMMARY. Read More
Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Settled
Summary:
$2M demand at trial, case settled for fraction of demand, $30K. Plaintiff trucker assisted in load by our insureds. The equipment loaded dislodged from the dolly, fell over and drove Plaintiff trucker’s head and left shoulder into the sidewall of trailer. Plaintiff required full back fusion surgery. Social Security awarded permanent total disability. Defense showed Defendant insured was not the cause of incident and injuries were pre-existing. Read More
Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
$750,000 sought, only $6 awarded
Summary:
1 week trial. Plaintiffs vehicle collided with over turned tractor trailer on I-95 Northbound . Plaintiff asked jury for over $340K. Jury found Plaintiff 95% comparative negligence and Defendant 5%. Defendant Anderson was driving his tractor trailer Northbound on I-95 when he claimed that his rig was pushed off the road by a strong wind. Defendant over­ corrected and rolled his tractor trailer onto I-95 blocking both north bound lanes. The only part of the tractor trailer visible to oncoming traffic was the undercarriage of the truck. Read more
Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Summary Judgment
Summary:
Court granted Summary Judgment (4/23/2009) in high exposure case where a labor ready employee was ejected from a moving sanitation truck and suffered neck, back, arm and knee injuries. The Plaintiff was attempting to circumvent Workers’ Compensation immunity by arguing a "Turner exception"; i.e., that the employer's conduct was substantially certain to result in injury or death. Plaintiff’s argument was based on the allegations that the sanitation truck had no door, no seat belt or door belt, and the temporary employee was given no training or instructions. Defense cited numerous examples where door less travel is permitted, no statute or rule forbids it, and the seat belt statute specifically exempts sanitation workers in the course of their trash pickup. Read More
Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:
Plaintiff sued the Coca Cola Co. for negligence and sought $1M. Around May 4, 2001, Plaintiff, a Shoreline Transportation employed 18-wheel truck driver in his 40's, picked up multiple 1,000 pound canisters of Coca Cola syrup in Atlanta to deliver to Pompano Beach, FL. Traveling southbound on I-95, Plaintiff first stopped at his home in Hialeah, FL before making the trip back north to Pompano Beach. Near the I-95, Copans Road exit, Plaintiff got a flat tire. As he brought the truck to a stop, the syrup canisters came crashing through the front of the trailer and into the cabin. Plaintiff alleged to have suffered herniated disc at L4-5, which required two surgeries. Plaintiff initially filed a $26K wage loss claim, the result of 13 months he claimed he could not work. Read More
Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Motion to Dismiss for Fraud on the Court
Summary:
Daniel Santaniello and Bill Peterfriend won a rare Motion to Dismiss for Fraud on the Court in Palm Beach County a week before trial was set to begin on a $ 2 Million dollar claim. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that on February 23, 1998, she was riding in a jog cart behind her horse at Sunshine Meadows Equestrian Village when a Sunburst Sanitation Waste Vehicle came onto the property to pick-up a dumpster, spooked her horse, causing the horse to go out of control. Plaintiff later changed her story to claim that Sunburst’s vehicle hit her jog cart, causing it to tip over and causing the Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff had several back surgeries and received total Social Security Disability and was demanding $2 million. Based upon the change in story, the Defense argued that the Plaintiff's case should be stricken for fraud on the Court. The court entered an order granting the Motion, holding that Plaintiff lied under oath regarding how the accident occurred, resulting in spoliation of evidence and prejudice to the Defendants. Read More