If you’re searching for a team of skilled and dedicated attorneys to lead you through your legal maze look no further than our Law Offices. Our legal team has been recognized by their peers and recently were inducted into the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum. Less than one (1%) percent of all attorneys in the United States receive this honor. And it has taken our Law Offices twenty years of hard work to get there.

Our capable team has built a reputation among our clients and their colleagues as dedicated, ethical and fierce defenders who capitalize on every personal injury case to get the fairest compensation allowed.

Our Law Offices has successfully litigated thousands of cases including personal traffic accidents, commercial vehicle wrecks, on-the-job accidents and wrongful death cases to name a few. Take a look below at some of our most notable cases. These are cases where we successfully sought justice for victims and in turn gained the respect of some well known insurance companies that were brought to justice as well.

Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases

Confidential Recovery – Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident (policy limits) Our firm was hired by the wife and children of a retired Army Colonel who was killed in an underride 18-wheeler accident. In addition to being a decorated veteran, the decedent worked both professionally and on a voluntary basis to establish numerous learning institutions and vocational programs for at risk youths. The accident occurred as the decedent was traveling on a rural highway when an 18-wheeler failed to yield the right of way and made a rolling stop through a stop sign. 

This placed the trailer of the 18-wheeler in a position whereby it blocked the entire roadway and shoulder, leaving the decedent no option but to collide with the trailer. Witnesses on the scene attempted to revive him but to no avail. Furthermore, while two female eye witnesses struggled to pry open the decedent’s door to provide emergency care, the truck driver stayed in his truck and offered no assistance. Despite what appeared to be an incredibly apparent case of negligence on behalf of the defendant, defense counsel refused to accept liability resulting in rather lengthy litigation. 

The defendants initially denied the claim based on the allegation that the decedent was speeding and the truck driver therefore could not adequately gauge the amount of time he had to pause at the stop sign. The physical evidence contradicted this notion entirely, notwithstanding the fact that even if the decedent had been contributorily negligent, that would not have outweighed the severe degree of negligence on the part of the defendant. Nevertheless, our attorneys were able to conclusively refute this argument based on eye-witness testimony and the testimony from police investigators who calculated the decedent’s speed to be precisely at the posted speed limit. In a desperate and largely unprecedented move, the defendants then designated the state as a responsible third party. 

Generally speaking, a defendant will often threaten to designate a third party in order to leverage their position but it is rare that such an arbitrary and arguably frivolous designation is actually carried out. However, that is precisely what occurred and the state was incorporated into the lawsuit by the defendants. The basis of the defendant’s argument was that the state erected a large street sign that obstructed the truck driver’s view of approaching traffic. 

Several months of intense litigation were required before the defendant finally acquiesced in regard to this argument. The argument was finally abandoned by the defendants when in the first mediation our attorneys presented video footage shot (in a controlled setting) from the perspective of an 18-wheeler driver which showed that the sign simply did not obstruct enough of the roadway in order to be a hazard. The case was ultimately resolved through litigation.

 

Confidential Recovery – Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident(policy limits) Our attorneys secured a recovery against a major trucking company for the daughter of a man who was killed after his vehicle collided into an 18-wheeler which was blocking the roadway. Litigation is ongoing against additional defendants.

Confidential Recovery – Wrongful Death / Automobile Accident (policy limits) Our firm was hired to pursue an intoxicated driver who killed an elderly school crossing guard. The fatal accident occurred as the decedent was escorting a woman and her child across the roadway through a crosswalk. The defendant then sped through the school zone, in an intoxicated a state, and struck the decedent who died on the scene. 

The family hired our firm to investigate and pursue the defendant under a wrongful death cause of action. Following our investigation and preliminary vehicle inspection, our attorneys issued a Stowers’ demand to the defendants. A significant factor in resolving this claim is that merely days before we submitted our demand to the defendant’ insurance carrier, we won a large case against the very same insurance carrier, which was one of several such victories secured against the carrier in our firm’s history. Our threats of litigation were therefore heeded and the defendants offered policy limits to settle the claim without the need to file suit.

Wrongful Death / Automobile Accident – Our attorneys were hired to represent the family of a middle aged woman who was killed in a car accident. The incident occurred as another vehicle struck the car that the decedent was a passenger in, head-on on the passenger side. The impact resulted in catastrophic injuries which claimed the life of the decedent. 

Our attorneys were hired soon after the accident and we launched a full investigation. Through the course of our investigation, it was soon determined that the head-on collision was caused a failed component in the defendant’s vehicle (the particulars of which cannot be elaborated upon per the resolution agreement). Suit was filed against the manufacturer of said component and litigation commenced. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.

Wrongful Death / Truck Accident – An elderly man was killed when a criminally negligent truck driver rear ended his vehicle as the man yielded the right of way to other traffic. Throughout the course of litigation the defendants fought to deny liability. Through our diligent investigative efforts we unearthed damning evidence and mounted an aggressive litigation strategy. Arguments were so persuasive that by the conclusion of litigation the defendant’s attorneys acquiesced wholly with regard to liability. 
Wrongful Death (Workplace Accident) – The family of a deceased factory worker hired our firm following a fatal loading dock/18-wheeler accident. The events unfolded as an unqualified driver reversed an 18-wheeler into the loading area of a major manufacturing concern and backed over the decedent, crushing his body. The case was filed in arbitration and litigated for approximately one year. The defendants asserted that the decedent was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. To support this assertion, they pointed to a number of allegations, but primarily counted on the claims that the decedent was not wearing a provided safety vest and that an audible reverse indicator was present in the reversing vehicle. Through discovery and an exhaustive investigation and onsite inspection, we were able to successfully counter these arguments and determine a number of theories of liability. 

The safety vest argument was diffused through the testimony of our consulting expert witness who verified that the type of vest that was offered by the defendants was not of the variety that was OSHA approved and that even if the vest had been worn it would have proven entirely ineffective due to several optical shortcomings. In particular, the reversing truck had to back through a doorway that resembles a garage door found in a mechanic shop. The width of the door relative to the width of the tractor-trailer left only a narrow valley of visibility one either side of the trailer by which the mirrors could only reflect what was immediately in line with the space between the door frame and the trailer, on either side of the vehicle. Therefore, for the mirrors to be effective, the decedent would have had to have been standing in one of the two narrow valleys, which would have placed him in a position that where could not have been injured in the first place. In other words, the only place that the mirrors would allow the driver to see was the very place that there was no danger. Furthermore, if the mirrors could not see the worker wearing the vest, then clearly the vest was inconsequential, notwithstanding the fact that the vest was not approved for such use. Additionally, even if the mirrors could display the area where the worker was standing and even if the worker was wearing the vest, the type of vest in question was of the variety that it only reflected light back to the source. As such, the overhead lighting was not sufficient to illuminate the vest. Only headlamps, or other such projected light sources, would have illuminated the vest. The final blow to this argument was that in deposition testimony the defendant admitted that he did not use his mirrors. With regard to the audible reverse alert system, our consulting expert in the field of audiology analyzed sound measurements taken on location and concluded that the ambient noise of the facility drowned out the noise of the alert system such to render its effects nil. Additionally, we contended that the noise-cancelling headphones worn by the decedent in compliance with stated company policy rendered the alert system doubly ineffective. 

Through discovery we learned that the defendant driver did not have a commercial drivers license and the defendant’s liability arguments waned. The case was eventually resolved through litigation. The decedent had signed a binding arbitration agreement prior to his death which, naturally, resulted in the lawsuit being filed in arbitration as opposed to conventional court. Also featured in the binding arbitration agreement was an option for the surviving spouse to accept a one-time payment in lieu of filing suit against the employer. At our recommendation, she declined their initial offer and we were eventually able to recover 10 times greater compensation.

Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident – The family of a deceased woman hired our firm following a fatal 18-wheeler accident. The fatal accident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered out of his lane, resulting in a massive collision. The decedent, a passenger in a vehicle, died on the scene. 

Her adult children consulted our firm to initially investigate the accident and make sense of the facts and circumstances since the family felt that the police report did not make it clear enough precisely what occurred. We launched a full investigation an immediately deposed the investigating officers. 

Upon the completion of our investigation, it was apparent that the trucking company was indeed negligent and a lawsuit was soon filed. The defendant’s launched an aggressive defense whereby they initially claimed that the truck driver was overcome by his passenger who allegedly grabbed the steering wheel and deliberately drove the truck off the road, despite the truck driver’s best efforts. 

We refuted this claim by illustrating that the tire marks that were present clearly show the truck gradually moving across the road and eventually onto the grass, which is entirely inconsistent with an abrupt lane change caused by someone taking control of the wheel. It was quite an unusual defense strategy that we were frankly surprised to even find ourselves having to refute. 

The defendants then argued that a tire blowout may have contributed to the accident, which is significant because it would enable the defendant to offset some portion of their liability to a tire manufacturer or installer. Through deposition testimony of the investigating officer we established that there was absolutely no indication at the scene of the accident that a tire had blown out. 

Finally, the defendants argued that the company which loaded the trailer may have improperly loaded the cargo. This argument was most plausible considering that the precise cause of the decedent’s death was that she was essentially pummeled by cargo that broke through trailer and struck her person. 

Our firm consulted several experts in the fields of heavy cargo transportation and physics. Our experts felt that the cargo was secured in a manner that is perfectly consistent with industry standards and that due to the forces involved, the cargo would not have behaved any differently irrespective of how it was secured. In short, the collision caused the cargo to break free and the negligence lay squarely on the trucking company and not any other entity. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.

 

Confidential Recovery – Wrongful Death / Premises LiabilityFacility sued for negligent contribution to the death of an innocent bystander. A fatal shooting occurred on the property after the facility failed to appropriately respond to outbursts of violence & gang activity. Following the young man’s death, his parents hired our firm to pursue the facility for their negligent actions including failure to provide adequate security. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.

$1,450,000.00 Recovery – Commercial Vehicle Accident (Brain Injury) – Our firm was hired by a delivery driver who suffered a closed head injury resulting in the permanent loss of smell in a head-on accident. The incident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered into oncoming traffic. Our client’s delivery vehicle was struck head-on, causing massive damage to both vehicles. 

Our client was taken to an area hospital where he was treated for minor bodily injuries and a closed head injury which originally manifested itself as a concussion and temporary memory loss. 

Suit was filed against the defendants following their failure to respond to our correspondence in a timely manner and litigation began. Included in the suit were both the defendant truck driver and his employer. The results of our investigation and the physical evidence from the accident scene made it apparent that the defendants had indeed caused the accident. Defense counsel soon conceded liability

Workplace Accident (Hand Lacerations) – A young worker was negligently trained to operate a piece of machinery. During a routine cleaning procedure, he suffered a serious hand injury consisting of numerous deep lacerations across his palm. The defendants claimed that he was a contract laborer and therefore owed no legal duty. Through litigation, our attorneys showed evidence to establish an employer-employee relationship thereby creating a non-subscriber work injury cause of action.

Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident (policy limits) – A husband and father of three was killed when the driver of an 18-wheeler veered into oncoming traffic, striking the young man’s vehicle and several others. The defendant was employed by a small construction company that operated only a single 18-wheeler. As such, the defendants were largely underinsured and were not financially solvent. 

Furthermore, the defendants had an eroding insurance policy and numerous other parties were intent upon filing claims of their own since the 18-wheeler struck multiple other vehicles. This created the need for an aggressive and rapid response before the other claimants could erode the policy. 

Defense counsel made it clear that they wished to litigate the case despite the insurmountable liability arguments that our attorneys presented. They intended to designate a third party as a responsible defendant since the accident happened in a construction zone, even though it was abundantly clear that the construction zone played no role in the crash. 

Additionally, the defendants made it clear that they wished to downplay the extent of the damages by virtue of a character assassination on the decedent. Fortunately for our clients, our firm has successfully litigated against the defendant’s insurer in nearly a dozen cases, so the carrier was quite aware of our courtroom capabilities. We presented a sample lawsuit to the defendant’s insurance carrier and informed them that the lawsuit was to be filed the moment that they refused to settle. 

Additionally, our attorneys submitted a Stowers’ Demand with a brief window of time for the defendants to respond. We made it abundantly clear that we intended to seek punitive damages and that we would assert the full limits of the carrier’s exposure under the Stowers’ Demand should the carrier not offer policy limits. 

The defendant’s attorney adamantly persuaded the carrier to litigate, however, our attorney’s threats of litigation, past track record, and incredibly aggressive pre-litigation actions convinced the insurance carrier to disregard their own attorney’s advice and to settle the case, lest they face our attorneys in court. 

Had our clients been represented by virtually any other firm who did not have our specific track record or who would have not recognized that this case required special and immediate attention coupled with an abnormally aggressive stance, the client’s would have certainly been tied up in litigation for years, with the limited supply of funds rapidly depleting since the other claimants who did not need to litigate would have essentially had right of first refusal.

 
Commercial Vehicle Accident (Back Injury Requiring Surgery) – Plaintiff suffered a back injury resulting in spinal fusion surgery when her car was rear-ended by an 18-wheeler. The defendants argued that the accident was unavoidable, thus denying liability. Litigation commenced and the case was satisfactorily resolved soon thereafter.

 
Commercial Vehicle Accident / Work Injury (Fractured Pelvis, Other Internal Injuries) – A loading dock employee suffered a fractured and damage to internal organs as the result of a crushing injury sustained when an 18-wheeler backed into him and crushed him between the trailer and loading dock. 

 
Wrongful Death / First Party Dram Shop – A young woman lost her life after a bar over served her more than three times the legal limit resulting in her burning to death in a single-vehicle accident. Witnesses stated that she was so intoxicated that she could barely make it to her vehicle without assistance. Through litigation, our attorneys ascertained the necessary evidence to prove that the establishment provided alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person, thus resulting in her ultimate demise.

 
 
Workplace Accident (Closed-Head Injury) – A painter fell from an apartment balcony resulting in a closed-head injury and other minor bodily injuries. The case was successfully resolved through litigation against the plaintiff’s employer and the general contractor. 

Commercial Vehicle Accident (Back and Neck Injury) – Recovery for driver struck from behind by 18-wheeler: Driver sustained back and neck injury. 

Commercial Vehicle Accident (Back Injury Requiring Surgery) – Plaintiff, a delivery driver, suffered a back injury resulting in spinal fusion surgery when he was injured in an accident involving falling cargo from an 18-wheeler. The defendants cited the plaintiff’s failure to take evasive action as a source of contributory negligence and litigation commenced accordingly which culminated in an acceptance of liability and eventually satisfactory resolution. 

Commercial Vehicle Accident / Motorcycle Accident (Shoulder Injury Requiring Surgery) – An airline pilot suffered a shoulder injury resulting in surgery when he was sideswiped by an 18-wheeler. The case was resolved through litigation, as establishing liability was a contentious matter. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff made an illegal passing maneuver, but the evidence showed that the defendant made a sweeping turn and intruded upon our client’s right of way. 

Wrongful Death / Medical Malpractice – A young handicapped woman lost her life when a long-term care facility failed to provide her with treatment for obvious symptoms of severe illness. The defendants maintained that there were no outwardly visible signs of illness. The medical evidence showed otherwise. The case was successfully resolved through litigation, though damages caps imposed by tort reform were a factor. 

Premises Liability (Brain Injury) – Our attorneys sued an apartment complex in relation to a brain injury sustained by a toddler when he fell through a balcony railing. The apartment complex denied liability, asserted that their railings were in spec at the time of the building’s construction (some 20 years prior), and they claimed that the child’s mother was contributorily negligent in that she did not notice that her child was playing near the railing. 

Through litigation, our attorneys countered the defendant’s arguments by showing that the case law does not support the notion of any safety related concerns in the building code being “grandfathered” in. On the contrary, a property owner has an obligation to keep safety features such as balcony railings within the specs at all times. The railings in this complex were spaced at 7 inch intervals, which was at odds with the now-standard 4 inch interval. 

Additionally, our attorneys countered the claims of contributory negligence as a practical matter in that the mother was indeed monitoring the child’s activity and the child literally ran up to the railing and immediately fell through the rails. Alternatively, we argued that the doctrine of parental immunity applied and that the contributory negligence, if any such negligence ever even occurred, of the mother would not be admissible. The case was satisfactorily resolved through litigation.

Commercial Vehicle Accident (Back Injury Requiring Surgery) – Our client, a middle-aged woman, was injured when an 18-wheeler rear-ended her vehicle. As a consequence of the wreck, she sustained a back injury which required surgery to remedy. Naturally, the defendants denied liability and argued that the accident was unavoidable. Our attorneys filed suit. The defendant driver initially claimed that our client suddenly changed lanes in front of his tractor-trailer and then inexplicably slammed onto her brakes. When confronted with eye-witness testimony and other physical evidence that reflected an entirely different scenario, the truck driver ultimately recanted. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.

Wrongful Death / First Party Dram Shop – Our firm was hired by the minor child and parents of a young man who was killed in a motorcycle accident after being over served alcohol at a bar. The plaintiffs hired our firm to investigate the claim on the basis that the decedent was over the legal limit at the time of his death. In initial attempts to settle the case out of court, the defendants denied liability. Suit was filed soon thereafter. 

The defendants initially argued that the decedent never consumed alcohol on their premises. Through physical evidence and deposition testimony to the contrary, we were able to conclusively prove that the decedent had indeed been drinking at the establishment. 

The defendants then asserted allegations that the decedent’s minor child was not actually his biological child, which would bar his claim entirely. A DNA test was performed and this argument was defeated. 

The defendants then asserted the safe harbor defense. Our attorneys argued that the defendants did not qualify for safe harbor protection due to the fact that their servers were not all licensed providers. However, while this element was being addressed, our attorneys focused their attention on addressing the second element of the safe harbor defense regarding the bar’s encouragement of the over service of alcohol. The defendants claimed that they would never serve the double-shot Bacardi cocktails that witnesses claimed the decedent drank several of. We sent private investigators into the bar to order the same drinks that the decedent consumed on the night of his death and the very same bar tenders who over served the decedent, without hesitation, served copious amounts of alcohol to the investigators, all of which was captured on hidden camera. 

Once the safe harbor defense was defeated, the defendants argued that the decedent’s BAC was low enough at the time of his death (as recorded by the hospital) that he would not have necessarily appeared obviously intoxicated to the servers and therefore the bar should not be held liable even if he had been over served. Eyewitness testimony refuted this. 

Additionally, our firm’s testifying medical expert reviewed the medical records related to the emergency helicopter flight that transported the decedent to the hospital after his accident. She determined that the EMS technicians administered numerous blood transfusions while in flight. Armed with this newfound data, our medical expert reverse extrapolated and determined conclusively that the decedent’s BAC was actually in the range of .19-.21 at the time of the accident, though it was drastically diluted by the time he arrived at the hospital, which accounted for the relatively low BAC found in the hospital’s medical records. This testimony proved to be pivotal in the case, resulting in a successful recovery for our clients. 

Product Liability (Back Injury Resulting in Surgery) – A young woman suffered a back injury that required corrective surgery following a boating accident. The boat in question sped out of control and crashed into a landmass, throwing our client from the boat, as the result of a stuck throttle. Upon inspection of the boat, it was determined that a poor design led to the malfunction and a product liability lawsuit was brought against the manufacturer. The defendants argued that the boat was inappropriately piloted, however, the physical evidence depicted the cause of the accident quite clearly and the case was successfully resolved.

Third-Party Dram Shop Accident (Punctured Colon and Soft Tissue Injuries) – Our client suffered a punctured colon and numerous soft tissue injuries in an alcohol-related car accident. The accident occurred as the defendant driver crashed his car into a concrete median. The plaintiff, a passenger in the vehicle, alleged that the defendant driver was over served alcohol to such an extent that he was several times the legal limit. As such, a claim was brought against the defendant driver and the bar which over served him. A settlement was reached with the defendant driver and the plaintiff turned his focus on the bar in question. The case was resolved successfully through litigation. Based on the egregious conduct of the bar and it’s numerous TABC violations, the defendant’s liquor license was revoked soon after the case was resolved. 

 

Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident – The mother of a young man hired our firm to investigate the death of her son following a fatal car accident. The incident occurred as one of the two vehicles involved ran a red light and drive into the path of the other. The defendant was driving a work vehicle for a construction company. The defendant survived the accident and stated to police that the decedent caused the accident. The police could not conclusively determine who was at fault, yet the police report strongly implied that the decedent was likely at fault based on the statement provided by the defendant. 

The plaintiff’s mother was not convinced. Through a thorough investigation, we ultimately determined that the stoplight that the defendant claimed that our client ran, in fact, worked on a timer whereby the light was always green between certain hours unless a vehicle traveling on the intersecting road had been stopped at the right light for more than 30 seconds. Based on an analysis of the vehicles and tire markings, it was conclusively determined that both vehicles were traveling at the speed limit, which clearly indicates that the defendant driver had not accelerated from stop, rather, he was traveling at the speed limit, which would not have triggered a green light for the defendant. 

The logical implications of this information is that the light could not have been red for the plaintiff, and it certainly would have been red for the defendant. As a consequence of this information, the case was resolved through litigation.

 
 Commercial Vehicle Accident (Back Injury Requiring Surgery) – A delivery driver hired our firm to pursue a negligent trucking company following a collision with insecure cargo. Our client was driving his work vehicle when numerous large metal pipes fell from the back of a flatbed trailer onto the roadway. Our client took evasive action but was unable to avoid the debris, which resulted in a fairly severe accident. As a result, our client sustained lower back injuries including two herniated discs which required surgery to correct. The defendants conceded liability early on but would not make a reasonable settlement offer. As such, suit was filed and the case was ultimately successfully resolved through litigation.

Wrongful Death / Third Party Dram Shop (policy limits) – An incredibly intoxicated driver drove head-on into a vehicle, killing several of the vehicle’s occupants. The defendants had limited assets, yet an alternative policy was uncovered, which the defendants argued was non applicable. Under threat of litigation, our attorneys negotiated a settlement for the policy limits. 

 

 Commercial Vehicle Accident / Work Injury (Facial Fractures and Head Trauma) – A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff’s employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers’ Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for. 

The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock. 

It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle’s proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.

 

Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident(policy limits) – A young mother was killed in an accident involving two commercial vehicles, one an 18-wheeler. The accident occurred as the young woman was a passenger in a vehicle that was traveling down a highway in the early morning hours. Without warning, the vehicle in which she was a passenger collided with a stalled 18-wheeler that parked in the right of way, resulting in catastrophic injuries that claimed the young woman’s life soon thereafter. 

The authorities initially faulted the driver of the vehicle in which the victim was a passenger, stating that he was using an electronic device rather than paying full attention to the roadway. However, the 18-wheeler was indeed blocking the roadway and plaintiff alleged that the vehicle did not follow the requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act in regard to providing adequate reflective or laminated warning at specific intervals. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to remove his vehicle from the roadway when he first noticed signs of mechanical failure. 

Had he simply moved to the shoulder of the road, plaintiffs argued, his lack of adequate warning signs would have been inconsequential. An initial settlement has been obtained in this case, yet litigation has commenced in full against the remaining defendant, and is currently ongoing.

 

Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident – Our attorneys were hired to investigate a fatal motor vehicle accident involving an 18-wheeler that claimed the lives of several men, the family of one in particular which our firm represented, felt that the official version of events as outlined in the police report was not an accurate portrayal of the facts and circumstances of the collision. 

Our firm launched an investigation, the findings of which served as the basis for a subsequent lawsuit. We were able to determine that the defendant’s accusations of contributory negligence on behalf of he driver of the vehicle did appear to be valid and plaintiffs conceded as much. However, the plaintiffs were adamant that the contributory negligence did not entirely overshadow the negligence on behalf of the defendant truck driver. 

Through physical evidence and an admission of liability that our attorneys were able to importune from the defendant under oath, we were able to show that the defendant had indeed pulled into the path of the decedent’s vehicle, which was of consequence irrespective of the decedent’s own contributory negligence.

Workplace Accident (Shoulder Injury Requiring Surgery) – Our attorneys were hired by a delivery driver who sustained a serious shoulder injury when a worker for a third party negligently operated a fork lift. The accident occurred as the plaintiff delivered a load of hay bails to a commercial farm. 

An employee of said facility attempted to unload the trailer with a forklift. In doing so, he pushed several bales of hay off of the flatbed, over the side opposite the forklift. Consequently, several of the 400 lb (est.) bales of hay struck the plaintiff who was working to disconnect tie downs on the opposite side of the trailer. This resulted in serious injury to the plaintiff’s shoulder. 

The defendants took an aggressive stance and denied the claim, asserting that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his own injuries by virtue of the fact that he was standing in a known dangerous area. Suit was filed soon thereafter. Our attorneys argued that the plaintiff’s ordinary work duties, and indeed the normal protocol for all flatbed delivery drivers, consists of letting loose the materials to be unloaded. We maintained that the true cause of the plaintiff’s injuries was that the forklift operator rushed into unloading the trailer. 

Furthermore, the manner in which he unloaded the trailer was itself a contributing element of the defendant’s negligence. The forks that were incorporated into the forklift in question were not compatible with stabbing hay bails; they were ordinary forks that were designed to be positioned below a heavy object that was to be lifted. The case was successfully resolved in mediation.

 

Automobile Accident (Back Injury) – Our firm was hired to pursue a claim against a negligent following a rear-end car accident. The plaintiff was driving her vehicle in traffic on an interstate in Texas when the defendant approached from behind and collided with her vehicle, pushing it into the vehicle in front of her. The plaintiff sustained disc compression and herniation at C3-4 which required surgery to rectify. The defendant’s ultimately accepted liability but heavily disputed the damages. Under threat of litigation, the defendants raised their offer. Our attorneys continued to aggressively negotiate on behalf of our client and a satisfactory result was eventually obtained. 

Automobile Accident (Neck Injury Requiring Surgery) – Our client was injured in a motor vehicle accident when an employer driving a company vehicle failed to yield the right of way and collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle. The defendant’s employer was sued for negligence soon thereafter. The defendants alleged that the company should not be held liable for the actions of the employee. 

They claimed that the employee was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Through discovery, our attorneys learned that the defendants had a policy, both written and implied, whereby employees of the company were allowed to drive work vehicles after hours. 

Furthermore, our attorneys argued case law that expanded the definition of course and scope which showed that the defendant was indeed “on the clock” when the accident occurred. 

As a result, the defendants conceded liability and turned their defenses toward the alleged damages. They claimed that our client had a preexisting condition that was responsible for her current state. 

We deposed the emergency room physician who assessed the client and recommended surgery regarding the medical necessity of the surgical procedure and the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s condition. He testimony unequivocally defeated these arguments. The case was satisfactorily resolved through litigation.

======================gtg