Recent Cases

T.P. v. American Commercial Barge Line, LLC

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff alleged that on March 19, 2005, while attempting to check tow as a lead-man he slipped and fell severely injuring his right knee which required surgery. Moreover, Plaintiff claimed that he would require additional medical treatment for his injuries and Defendant failed to maintenance and cure him. Plaintiff brought his action pursuant to the provisions of Title 46 U.S.C., Section 688, et seq., commonly called the Jones Act and General Maritime Laws of the United States.

Plaintiff’s case was filed in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri pursuant to R.S.Mo. § 347.069 prior to tort reform occurring on August 25, 2005. Thereafter, the Court by consent of the parties transferred to the case to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri.

Plaintiff alleged several theories of negligence against the Defendant. First, Plaintiff alleged was negligent in maintaining equipment and the vessel. Secondly, Plaintiff alleged his employer had provided an unseaworthy vessel as barges to which said vessel was towing lacked adequate non-skid and/or non-slip paint thus creating a dangerous condition. Therefore, in reliance of Seas Shipping Co., Inc. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 94 (1946), Plaintiff alleged that his employers’ duty to provide a seaworthy ship was absolute and non-delegable.

Finally, Plaintiff alleged cumulative trauma to his knee as a result of working on steel surfaces for eleven (11) years for the Defendant. Defendant moved for summary judgment prior to trial stating Plaintiff’s claims should be barred under maritime law by the Primary Duty Rule. As such his employer claimed that Plaintiff’s failure to place non-skid paint on the deck of the vessel caused his injuries.

The Court denied Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and held that the Jones Act is a broad remedial statute that must be liberally construed to further its humanitarian goal of holding barge companies responsible for the dangers to which their employees are exposed. Likewise, other Missouri courts have held that only a very small amount of evidence is required to establish liability in a Jones Act case. Under Missouri law the evidence needed to establish liability in a Jones Act case much less than in an ordinary negligence action. See also, Duncan v. American Commercial Barge Line, LLC, 166 S.W.3d 78 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004).

Subsequent to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment being denied by the Court the parties reached a confidential settlement agreement.

N/a. v. Confidential

$645,000.00 TRASH TRUCK SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff alleged that in July of 2005, while traveling on MO HWY 100 (Manchester Road) in St. Louis County, Missouri a trash truck being operated by the Defendant’s employee switched lanes improperly crashing into his car.

Defendant’s employee and driver of the trash truck denied crashing into Plaintiff’s car. Thus, Defendant denied liability relating to the crash based upon the truck driver’s testimony.

Plaintiff alleged injuries to his back and neck as a result of the crash with the truck. Plaintiff was forced to undergo surgery to correct injuries to his cervical discs which he claimed resulted from the crash. Prior to trial, Plaintiff’s treating physician testified that he would need additional medical every treatment yearly for the remainder of his life. Therefore, Plaintiff sought compensation for past medical treatment received and for medical treatment he would need in the future as a result of the truck crash.

Plaintiff’s counsel’s investigation revealed witnesses to the truck crash that had not been listed on the police report. The witnesses testified that the truck improperly switched lanes and crashed into Plaintiff’s car. While Defendant originally denied Plaintiff’s claims the parties reached a settlement on the morning of trial.

J.W. v. B.S

POLICY LIMITS SETTLEMENT

On February 7, 2008, Plaintiff was hit by a car driven by the Defendant while walking along the side of the roadway near Sikeston, Missouri. Plaintiff suffered serious injuries to his left arm and leg which required hospitalization and numerous surgical procedures. Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant negligently failed to use the high-beam headlights of his car in order to see Plaintiff; failed to keep careful look out; failed to take corrective actions to prevent crashing into Plaintiff with his car; and crashed into Plaintiff because he was traveling on the shoulder of the roadway.

Plaintiff alleged the cost of outstanding medical bills and lost wages because of Defendant’s aforementioned negligence. The parties reached a settlement for policy limits prior to trial.

M.R. v. C.S.

CAR CRASH POLICY LIMITS SETTLEMENT

On October 15, 2007, Plaintiff was headed Westbound on a roadway in near Kirkwood, Missouri with her children. Plaintiff alleged she crashed into Defendant’s car at an intersection because they failed to yield the right-of-way at a green light. Plaintiff alleged injuries to her head, neck, and back including a closed head injury. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleged that because of Defendant’s negligence she was forced to miss a semester of college and would have to undergo a surgical procedure to correct herniated disc in her neck in the future. Prior to trial, the Defendant’s auto insurance carrier agreed to pay their policy limits for Plaintiff’s alleged damages.

N.J. v. R.F.

MOTORCYCLE POLICY LIMITS SETTLEMENT

On May 20, 2007, Plaintiff was a passenger on a motorcycle owned and operated by the Defendant. Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was negligent when he ran off the roadway near O’Fallon, Missouri. In addition, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant was driving the motorcycle in an intoxicated condition at the time of the crash and thus is negligent per se under Missouri law.

Plaintiff alleged serious injuries to her knee, arm, shoulder, legs, and back which required her to be hospitalized and undergo several operations. Plaintiff also alleged serious and permanent scars to various parts of her body and lost wages as a result of the alleged negligent operation of the motorcycle. Prior to trial the parties reached a settlement for the Defendant’s applicable insurance policy limits.

V.S. v. C.B.

POLICY LIMITS SETTLEMENT

On December 3, 2007, Plaintiff was rear-ended by the Defendant near Springfield, Missouri. As a result of the crash the Plaintiff’s car was totaled and she suffered serious injuries to her neck. Thereafter, Plaintiff underwent a surgical fusion to the vertebra in her neck. The Defendant’s insurance company attempted to avoid liability by alleging the reason for the crash was because of ice accumulation on the roadway and not Defendant’s negligence. Subsequent to the insurance company’s denial, Plaintiff filed a law suit alleging that Defendant failed to keep proper distance from Plaintiff’s car; drove a rate of speed excessive for the conditions; was inattentive; and failed to take corrective actions to avoid crashing into Plaintiff’s car.

Defendant’s insurance company agree to pay its policy limits days after Plaintiff filed an action in the Circuit Court of Green County, Missouri.

D.E. et. al v. Confidential

Plaintiffs were performing contracting duties at a chemical plant when a chemical tank over pressurized releasing hazardous chemicals, including bromide vapor. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was negligent in storing and recycling butanol acid and adding various compounds which resulted in the chemical tank over pressurizing and exploding.

Defendant failed to activate either the emergency or evacuation alarms even though both where present at the facility. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant’s actions prior and subsequent to the chemical release violated numerous OSHA regulations and thus Defendant was negligent per se for their injuries. These violations included the following:

• 29 CFR § 1910.38 in not providing proper exit routes and emergency action plans in the plant
• 29 CFR § 1910.1200 in not providing the required hazard communication to employees, agents and contractor in the plant
• 29 CFR § 1917.30(a) in not providing a compliant emergency action plan in the plant
• 29 CFR § 1918.100 in not providing a complaint emergence action plan in the plant
• 29 CFR § 1910.36 in not meeting the requirements of an exit routes in plant
• 29 CFR § 1910.119 in not meeting the reducing the consequences of a toxic chemical release.

Both Plaintiffs claimed they sustained serious injuries to their lungs and respiratory systems including reactive airways disorder syndrome (“RADS”) as a result of the chemical release. Only weeks prior to trial the parties reached a total settlement of $4,750,000.00 for both Plaintiffs.

L.P. v. C.O

Plaintiff was struck by the Defendant’s car on August 18, 2006, near St. Charles, Missouri. Defendant was a resident of the State of Florida and in the St. Louis area for business. After being rear-ended by Defendant’s car, the Plaintiff’s car was pushed into the car in front of her. Plaintiff alleged loss wages and injuries to her neck as a result of the car crash.

Defendant’s insurance company originally denied Plaintiff’s claim because of an alleged preexisting condition to Plaintiff’s neck. However, prior to trial Defendant’s insurance company agreed to pay its policy limits for Plaintiff’s claims.

J.K. v. Farmers Insurance & Progressive Northwest Insurance Company

UNDERINSURED MOTORIST POLICY LIMITS SETTLEMENT

In December of 2003, Plaintiff was a passenger in a car that was crashed into by a drunk driver. At the time of the car crash the Plaintiff was a minor and unable to bring a cause of action against any responsible parties.

Plaintiff sustained serious injuries to her ankle which required several surgeries as a result of the car crash. The insurance company for the drunk driver agreed to pay its policy limits for Plaintiff’s injuries. However, Plaintiff was to recover very little compensation from the drunk drivers’ insurance company because of the severity of her injuries and outstanding medical bills relating to her injuries. Thus, Plaintiff made additional claims against two other auto insurance companies. Plaintiff made underinsured motorist claims against the insurance companies of the car in which she was a passenger in at the time of the crash and her auto insurance company.

Plaintiff’s counsel obtained the policy limits from both insurance carriers pursuant to each policies underinsured motorist provisions. Therefore, Plaintiff obtained a settlement from three (3) separate insurance companies for her injuries in the car crash.

R.R. v. American Family Insurance

On June 28, 2007, Plaintiff was hit by a car that left the site of the crash and which could not be identified through investigation. As a result of the crash, Plaintiff received injuries to her abdomen, left hand, left wrist, right shoulder, and right leg. While Plaintiff could not identify the responsible individual, she obtained a policy limits settlement from her insurance company pursuant to her uninsured motorist provision.

J.D. v. W.W.

POLICY LIMITS SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff was rear-ended by the Defendant on April 9, 2007, near Bonne Terre, Missouri. Plaintiff alleged back injuries, including disc ruptures at L3-L4; L4-L5; and L5-S1; anxiety; and depression as a result of the car crash. In addition, Plaintiff claimed past and future loss wages as a result of the car crash.

Plaintiff alleged Defendant was negligent in rear-ending Plaintiff car; driving to close to Plaintiff’s car; and operating the car at an excessive speed immediately prior to the crash. The Defendant’s insurance carrier alleged that Plaintiff was negligent and contributed to the crash by stopping his car suddenly immediately prior to the crash. Also, Defendant’s insurance company alleged that because of the minimal damage to the cars Plaintiff’s back injuries could not have been caused by the crash. Prior to trial, however, the Defendant’s insurance company agreed to pay Plaintiff its policy limits.

L.P. v. J.T. et. al

POLICY LIMITS SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff was a passenger in a car that was hit by a drunk driver on July 18, 2005, in Southeastern Missouri. Unfortunately, the driver of the truck that hit the car in which Plaintiff was riding died as a result of the crash. It was later discovered that the operator of the truck did not have a license or any auto insurance to compensate Plaintiff for her injuries.

Plaintiff sued the owner of the truck claiming negligent entrustment since the decedent was not a licensed driver. The owner of the truck denied allowing the decedent permission to use his truck at the time of the crash. Plaintiff alleged that since the owner of the truck had left the keys in the ignition, the windows down and knew of decedent’s intent to use said truck, entrustment could be inferred. Plaintiff argued the decision in Long v. Missouri Delta Med. Ctr., 33 S.W.3d 629, 637 (Mo. App. 2000) (stating behavior in not removing the keys from the ignition of his vehicle does not need to be the sole cause of the Plaintiffs’ injuries, but must be one of the efficient causes thereof without which the injury would not have occurred).

In addition, Plaintiff brought an action against the two (2) separate auto insurance carriers pursuant to those companies’ uninsured motorist provisions.

Plaintiff alleged that as a result of the car crash, she sustained serious injuries to her leg which required hospitalization for approximately one (1) month and several subsequent surgeries. Prior to trial the insurance carrier for the owner of the truck agreed to pay the applicable policy limits. In addition, as a question of fact existed for a jury to decide relating to if entrustment of the truck had occurred, the insurance company agreed to settlement.

S.S v. Tri-County Trucking

SEMI TRUCK CRASH CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT

On a snowy day in February of 2004, Plaintiff was traveling southbound on Illinois Route 3 in Illinois. While traveling on the road Plaintiff noticed a car crash in the northbound lane of Illinois Route 3. Thus, the Plaintiff applied her brakes in an attempt to slow her car. However, when Plaintiff applied the brakes she lost control of her car due to the ice and snow on the road and went into the shoulder of road.

Thereafter, a semi-truck owned and operated by the Defendant crashed into the rear of Plaintiff’s car. Plaintiff alleged Defendant’s negligence and numerous state and Federal regulations violations caused or contributed to cause the crash.

These allegations included:

• Failing to observe ahead and laterally ahead to avoid objects in the roadway;
• Going too fast for conditions then and there existing on the roadway;
• Failing to swerve to avoid hitting Plaintiff’s car;
• Failing to slow truck despite the weather conditions existing on the roadway;
• Failing to ensure that he had adequate line-of-sight of the other vehicles and obstructions in the roadway:
• Following in to close of proximity to Plaintiff’s car;
• Failing to ensure adequate stopping distance between Defendant’s truck and Plaintiff’s car;
• Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 395.3(b)(2) in that the driver of the truck had been driving for an long period of time;
• Violations of 49 C.F.R. § 393.42(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 393.48(a) in failing to keep proper braking equipment;
• Violations of 49 C.F.R. § 392.7 relating to the truck and trailer; and
• Violations of 49 C.F.R. § 392.3 in that the driver of the truck was impaired because of fatigue;

As a result of the crash, Plaintiff life flighted to a local hospital. At the hospital it was determined that Plaintiff had sustained serious injuries to her head, neck, chest and knee. Thereafter, Plaintiff underwent knee surgery as a result of the crash with the truck. The parties reached a confidential settlement agreement only a few weeks prior to trial.