Results

A 41-year-old mother was killed when steel coils broke free from a tractor trailer and crushed her car. She had just dropped off her five-month-old daughter and was on her way to work when the accident occurred. The steel coils came loose as the truck driver attempted to avoid a disabled vehicle. The claim involved the tractor-trailer being improperly loaded and secured.
 
NOTE: The above-mentioned case is an illustration and is merely representative of recoveries obtained in certain specific cases; it should not be viewed as an assurance or guarantee of particular results. Each case is different and must stand on its own merit.

The plaintiff was a Springville man employed as a laborer on a road-stripping crew. The crew had worked well into the evening when the plaintiff was struck by a pick-up truck. The driver of the pick-up truck claimed he did not expect the crew to be working in the roadway that late at night.

The claim was that the owners and contractors of the project had not taken the appropriate steps to protect workers from traffic. The 45-year-old plaintiff suffered a fractured skull and broken neck and needed reconstructive surgery on his knee. He was left with permanent seizure disorder which, along with his other injuries, prevented him from returning to construction work.

NOTE: The above-mentioned case is an illustration and is merely representative of recoveries obtained in certain specific cases; it should not be viewed as an assurance or guarantee of particular results. Each case is different and must stand on its own merit.

The plaintiff was a young boy who was injured by the claw of a hammer. While he was using the hammer to remove a nail, the hammer broke and the claw struck the boy in his left eye. Despite six operations, he was still left without sight in his eye. The claim was that the hammer was defectively manufactured.

NOTE: The above-mentioned case is an illustration and is merely representative of recoveries obtained in certain specific cases; it should not be viewed as an assurance or guarantee of particular results. Each case is different and must stand on its own merit.

A 38-year-old mother was killed and her 13-year-old daughter was severely injured when they were struck by a van as they stood next to their minivan after it had become disabled in the center median of the highway. The claim was that the van struck the rear-end of a delivery truck, sending the van skidding into the plaintiffs' disabled vehicle. In addition, the claim was that the driver of the delivery truck waited too long before applying his brakes, causing the collision between the delivery truck and the van.

NOTE: The above-mentioned case is an illustration and is merely representative of recoveries obtained in certain specific cases; it should not be viewed as an assurance or guarantee of particular results. Each case is different and must stand on its own merit.

The infant plaintiff was born with severe brain injury and will require extensive medical attention over his lifetime. The claim was that the doctors and hospital staff waited too long to deliver the child when they knew, or should have known, that the unborn child was in fetal distress.

NOTE: The above-mentioned case is an illustration and is merely representative of recoveries obtained in certain specific cases; it should not be viewed as an assurance or guarantee of particular results. Each case is different and must stand on its own merit.

A 32-year-old male ironworker fell 53 feet from the steel frame of an airplane hangar being built at an air base. As a result of the fall, the plaintiff suffered, among other injuries, multiple fractures to his jaw, arm and feet, as well as torn ligaments in his knees. As a result of his injuries, the plaintiff is not able to perform physical labor as he is unable to sit, stand or walk for any length of time. His wife suffered a loss of marital relations and took over significant family chores. The claim was that three corporate defendants involved in the air base construction job were legally liable for the plaintiff's injuries for failing to provide plaintiff with fall-protection safety equipment to prevent or break his fall.

NOTE: The above-mentioned case is an illustration and is merely representative of recoveries obtained in certain specific cases; it should not be viewed as an assurance or guarantee of particular results. Each case is different and must stand on its own merit.