• Auto Defense
• Premises Liability
• Products Liability
• Employment Law
• General Civil Litigation
• Business Litigation
• Dental Malpractice
• Bad Faith

Auto

Ron Zurek (Senior Partner/Los Angeles) defended a teenaged driver who struck a pedestrian as he finished crossing the street in a marked and lighted crosswalk. Negligence on the part of the driver was admitted but the pedestrian was blamed for running out in front of the car, from behind another car that was stopped in the adjacent lane. The pedestrian was found to be 25% at fault for the accident and the amount of monetary damages awarded for his serious injuries was far below the amount of money that had been offered in settlement before trial. The verdict was so low that the trial judge later granted the pedestrian a new trial. Ron intends to do even better in the next trial.

Ron Zurek (Senior Partner/Los Angeles) represented a diabetic woman whose blood sugar level unexpectedly dropped to a dangerously low level as she was driving on the freeway. She was unable to stop the car or adequately control it while it travelled for more than five miles, slowly picking up speed until it sideswiped one car and then forcefully rammed another car, launching that one into still another and ultimately resulting in a multiple vehicle accident. When she was sued by one of the injured parties, the defense raised was that she was not negligent or responsible, accident notwithstanding, because she had been responsible in the care and maintenance of her medical condition and she could not have reasonably foreseen this event. The jury agreed and the defendant client was completely exonerated.

Ron Zurek (Senior Partner/Los Angeles) defended a driver against a serious injury claim brought by a lawyer bicyclist. The bicyclist claimed that the car driver client was negligent for cutting him off by making a sudden right turn just as he was going past the car, causing a collision that threw him off his bike and over the car altogether. The defense was that the bicyclist was solely responsible for unsafely trying to pass on the right. The jury agreed, no liability was found and the bicyclist now owes a significant amount of monetary costs to the defendant.

Ron Zurek (Senior Partner/Los Angeles) In another case where negligence on the part of the defendant client was admitted, Ron Zurek got a jury to agree that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were actually minimal and considerably less than what had been offered in settlement. The plaintiff passenger sued his best friend/driver, asserting that a high speed head-on crash he caused resulted in a shoulder injury that required him to undergo surgery. The defense claim was that the plaintiff actually hurt his shoulder later, lifting weights in a gym, and not in the car accident. Plaintiff brought in two lawyers to try this case but the jury rejected the claim, resulting in a small verdict that will be fully offset by the costs that the plaintiff now owes the defendant.

Ron Zurek (Senior Partner/Los Angeles) In still another case where liability was fully admitted, Ron Zurek represented a young lady who had consumed considerable alcohol [ 0.19%] before she crossed a center line and struck another car head-on, causing an injury that crushed the kneecap of the other driver. The full amount of liability insurance had been offered but the plaintiff would not accept it, choosing instead to go to trial in order to seek punitive damages from the driver and to also try and establish liability on the driver's employer. Despite adverse toxicology testimony and a guilty plea by the client to a felony charge, the jury was convinced to find no malice and to thereby award no punitive damages.

Ron Zurek (Senior Partner/Los Angeles) recently completed a five week trial where a very badly injured motorcyclist sued his clients, and sued Ford Motor Company as well, as a result of a freeway accident that happened when the defendant's Ford pickup truck suddenly lost steering and thereby veered across five lanes of traffic. An integral part of the steering mechanism of the truck was found later to have broken. Ford vigorously disputed the claim that it's part was defective, claiming instead that Ron's [convicted felon] client was lying about the accident because steering didn't break; that the part did break but only later and only after a collision; that the part broke only because the vehicle owner had misued the truck by getting it into another prior accident that weakened the part; and that the truck driver should have stopped the truck safely, anyway. A settlement offer of half a million dollars had been made before trial by Ron's clients; Ford offered virtually nothing. The jury ultimately found completely in favor of Ron's clients, exonerating them of all liability and blaming Ford fully and completely for $2.61 million in damages that were awarded. Ford's lawyers report this to be the first time they have ever lost a case of this type.

Ronald Zurek (Senior Partner/Los Angeles). In his most recent trial Ron represented a young man who crashed his car into a freeway center divider late at night after he had been drinking. It was the man's third alcohol related driving offense. Sitting in the dark on the freeway and blocking most of the first lane, his car was struck by the next car that came along. It was being driven by the 30 year old plaintiff who was in the course of her job working for the County Coroner. She injured her back in the accident and went off of work, never to return because her job had heavy physical duty requirements. This generated a claim for a lifetime of lost earnings which, because of lucrative benefits and her age, amounted to almost two million dollars alone. On the basis of defendant's past drinking problems, plaintiff also sought to recover punitive damages from Ron's client.

The defense was that the plaintiff should share some blame for the accident because she should have avoided the accident despite defendant's primary blame and further, that her injuries were simply not as bad as she claimed. Through effective cross examination of the plaintiff and her doctor, Ron convinced the jury of his position and the result was a verdict that the plaintiff was deemed half responsible for the accident herself, she was awarded only a fraction of the medical expenses she claimed, she was awarded very little lost income and absolutely no future loss, plus the jury chose to award her literally no money for pain and suffering. The claim for punitive damages was also completely rejected, and the jury was unanimous in their findings. In the end, the plaintiff was awarded only $11,500 which, because of a prior small settlement with the car's owner, will not even have to be paid.

Arpineh Babakhanian (Associate/Los Angeles). A garden variety rear-end accident which occurred on April 26, 2004 in the city of Lancaster. Our client, was stopped behind plaintiff intending to turn left at an intersection. The light turned green, plaintiff completed her turn and defendant followed behind her. As plaintiff completed her turn she approached a railroad crossing about 30 feet away when the lights and whistles for the crossing engaged. She stopped abruptly and defendant, hit his brakes immediately but slid into the rear of her vehicle. The property damage to plaintiff's vehicle was about $750 dollars. She took one month off work as a bus driver for Valley School District, claiming $2,000 in lost earnings. She also sought medical treatment at Kaiser and AV Spinal Care, in the amount of $2,700. To date, she was claiming problems and pain with her right shoulder, despite the fact that she had not treated in nearly five years!

The matter proceeded to a jury trial and lasted a short two days. The plaintiff's case in chief consisted of plaintiff's own testimony and the defendant's testimony. Plaintiff chose not to call any of her treating physicians or any other designated experts. The defense relied solely on the testimony of the defendant. In closing arguments, plaintiff asked for approximately $50,000 of damages which consisted of her loss of earnings, medicals and $15,000 for past pain and suffering and $30,000 for future pain and suffering Defendant asked the jury to find that he was not negligent however if they were so inclined to find him negligent, then to not award her any damages as this minor impact could not have possibly caused her any injury. After 15 minutes of deliberations, the jury returned with a 10-2 defense verdict that defendant was not negligent in the operation of his vehicle. The jury did not even have to reach the issue of causation - whether the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injuries. In settlement negotiations, the defense had offered $2,500 to plaintiff. Plaintiff's last offer was in the amount of $9,999. Subsequently, in speaking with the jury, they explained that their decision was made easy because of the strength of the arguments that the defense made in discrediting plaintiff's recollection of her medical treatment, the costs associated with the treatment and the lack of an explanation for how such a small impact could have allegedly caused such long-standing medical injuries.

September 2009 Mark Giannamore (Junior Partner/Los Angeles) in a recent first party binding arbitration held before Retired Justice Robert Letteau represented Mercury Insurance in a claim by two of their insureds. The right front seat passenger Mr. Juan Chavez alleged that as a result of the motor vehicle accident with substantial damage to the rear of his Jaguar, that he began experiencing epileptic seizures. However, in deposition, he could not recall if he struck his head on any portion of the interior of the vehicle. He did not have any visible sign of injury to his head. The driver Mr. Newell alleged that as a result of the incident, he sustained neck and back injuries, including a 7 millimeter disc protrusion in his lower back.

The defense utilizing expert witness, was able to establish that the likelihood of epileptic seizures being a result of a motor vehicle accident, without any heard trauma, was no greater than the general population’s likelihood of developing epileptic seizures. Although Mr. Chavez offered into evidence videotape of his epileptic seizures, it was unclear as to whether or not they were actually true seizures, or pseudo seizures which are nonorganic in nature. The defense as to Mr. Newell was that although a 7 millimeter disc protrusion was confirmed in his lower back, it was a pre-existing condition, that at best was aggravated by the subject accident. Through a meticulous review of his medical records, it was determined that Mr. Newell had a subsequent event to his lower back, which showed up on his MRI as a much brighter area of the disc. The expert testimony was that the new injury was within 2 to 3 months of the MRI which had been taken approximately a year-and-a-half after the subject accident.

The defense had offered Mr. Newell $50,000, and Mr. Chavez $30,000 by way of C.C.P.§ 998 Offers to Compromise. Judge Letteau awarded Claimant Chavez approximately $22,000 and claimant Newell approximately $36,000. A memorandum of costs was submitted by the defense in excess of $37,000 which is still pending. As a side note, Claimants Newell and Chavez approximately 2 days into the binding arbitration, fired their original attorney, and retained new counsel. The binding arbitration was completed after a six-month delay, with the above result.

Christopher Wesierski (Senior Partner/Irvine Office) recently obtained a defense verdict on a claim for negligent entrustment arising out of an auto accident and a wrongful death. Plaintiffs claimed that a wrong- way driver on the toll road had shown previous signs of dementia and Alzheimer and her husband should have known to take away her keys as she was an unsafe driver. Defendant argued that he was not responsible for her driving.

The jury found 11-1 on that claim in favor of the defense and against the plaintiffs (the heirs of the decedent a 44 year old woman).

The case was tried in Orange County Superior Court and the demand was substantial.

Ronald Zurek (Senior Partner/Los Angeles). In a case with rather unusual and dramatic facts and claims, Ron defended a women who was sued for punitive and other damages when the car she was driving at high freeway speeds veered into the center divider and then collided with other cars, thereby injuring her passenger/boyfriend. He claimed that the defendant, suffering from depression and having mixed alcohol and medication, was trying to commit suicide as she had done repeatedly in the past.

The defense focused upon the plaintiff's own conduct. Ron was able to prove that it was, in fact, the man's own intoxication and conduct that caused the accident. A jury took only 20 minutes to fully acquit the defendant and because plaintiff had previously failed to accept a modest settlement proposal that had been offered, he will now actually owe our client over $17,000 in costs.

Ron Zurek (Senior Partner/Los Angeles) recently defended a lady in a trial where it was claimed that her car hit a man who was walking in a crosswalk, thereby knocking him down and causing him a shoulder injury that lead to surgery which, in turn, caused him to develop a frozen shoulder and serious, permanent limitations. The plaintiff presented two orthopedic surgeons to back his cause.

Our client admitted the fact that her car bumped into the man while he was in a crosswalk, thus conceding negligence, but exception was taken to the contention that he was knocked down or seriously hurt. Having to overcome the fact that the man had no prior shoulder problems and that he did report promptly to an emergency room with shoulder complaints within hours of the accident, Ron was able to convince the jury that no serious injury really did result from the admitted act of defendant's negligence. A verdict in favor of the defendant resulted. Because plaintiff had turned down a generous settlement offer before trial, he is now responsible to pay the defendant over $22,000 in costs.

December 2008. Mark Giannamore (Junior Partner/Los Angeles) in a recent binding arbitration in front of Joe Thielen represented Mercury Insurance in a claim by one of their insureds. Claimant was traveling westbound on the 10 Freeway near Palm Desert. Claimant alleged that a hit-and-run driver traveling in the number one lane, struck her vehicle which was in the number two lane, causing her to lose control of her vehicle, and careen off the freeway, rolling over several times. Claimant had approximately 20 birds in 2 or 3 cages in the back seat of her vehicle. Claimant sustained soft tissue injuries to her neck and back.

Through lay and expert testimony, the defense was able to establish that there was no contact between the alleged hit-and-run vehicle and claimant’s vehicle (not withstanding the extensive rollover damage to claimant’s vehicle) and that at best, she over-reacted to the vehicle in the number one lane. The deposition of the reporting CHP officer was taken, and it was established that there was no evidence of a vehicle-to-vehicle contact. The deposition of the driver of a big-rig, was also utilized and although he testified that it appeared the vehicle in the number one lane may have come over into claimant’s lane, he too did not see any vehicle-to-vehicle contact. The arbitrator agreed that claimant had not met her burden of proof with regard to this necessary vehicle-to-vehicle contact, and a defense award was rendered. As a side note, although many of the birds were retrieved by Animal Control, the San Bernardino Desert now has a few more parakeets to its name.

March 2008, Frank D'Oro (Senior Partner/Los Angeles Office). The rear left quarter panel of plaintiff's vehicle was struck by defendant's cement mixer after she made a lane change and stopped her vehicle partially in the cement mixer's lane. According to plaintiff, traffic was merging at the point of impact because of construction immediately ahead of her and that she was simply following the vehicle in front of her. Upon feeling something hit the rear of her vehicle, plaintiff immediately got out of her vehicle on the driver's side. The driver of the mixer did not feel the impact and continued moving forward at a slow rate of speed, eventually crushing plaintiff's lower extremities before coming to a stop. Plaintiff claimed the driver negligently operated the mixer and that National Ready Mixed was negligent for failing to equip the mixer with a right fender mirror. The driver of the mixer testified that there was a curve in the road that directed his attention to the left and the center of the road as he crossed the intersection immediately prior to the accident. He also testified that from a stopped position before starting forward after the light changed to green, he checked his mirrors and the traffic to his right and confirmed that all was clear. The accident reconstructionist expert for the defense established that the only visible portion of plaintiff's vehicle prior to the mixer starting forward would have been the roof, which would have only been visible through the lower right-hand portion of the windshield of the mixer and it would appear as simply a straight line at the bottom of the windshield. The defense argued that with the driver's attention directed to the bend in the road to the left, he would not reasonably have seen plaintiff's vehicle. The defense further argued that the driver of the mixer had established his "right of way" and therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to make a lane change unless she could do so with reasonable safety and then only after signaling. Finally, the defense argued that the driver of the mixer was entitled to rely upon the "good conduct of others". Plaintiff’s medical specials were approximately $270,000 and she claimed future medical costs of nearly $1,000,000. She suffered significant injuries to her lower extremities as a result of the accident, and was still unable to walk without assistance over two years after the accident. Plaintiff's husband also made a claim for loss of consortium. The defense did not dispute the extent of plaintiff's injuries and produced no witnesses for the damages portion of the case.

Plaintiff initially demanded $2,000,000 in late 2007 and decreased the demand to $1,000,000 the week prior to the start of trial. Defendant offered $400,000 in late 2007 and then served a 998 offer in the sum of $600,000 in February 2008.

After less than one hour of deliberation, the jury returned a defense verdict. The jury found no negligence on the part of the driver of the mixer or National Ready Mixed.

July 2007. Mark Giannamore (Junior Partner/Los Angeles) in a recent third party binding arbitration held in Glendale received a defense award from the arbitrator. In this case, the defense was able to establish that plaintiff, driving a Porsche, made an abrupt lane change, (due to a stopped SUV at a crosswalk) in front of defendant’s oncoming vehicle and made an emergency stop, when she realized that the SUV had stopped for a pedestrian. The defense established that the abrupt lane change, had reduced defendant’s effective stopping distance, with the resulting rear end impact. The arbitrator found for the defense, and plaintiffs did not file a trial de novo, with the defense arbitration award being entered as a judgment.

April 2007 Ron Zurek (Senior Partner/Los Angeles Office) recently tried a personal injury case where liability was admitted. Ron's clients, driving a truck which was pulling a trailer that was carrying a bulldozer and a pallet of cement bags [later described as being much heavier than a Sherman tank!] rear ended a pickup truck driven and occupied by the two plaintiffs. The driver was a man who, despite a lengthy history of back problems, had been doing hard physical work as an irrigation/plumbing worker for many years. He documented work and $55,000 of annual earnings for at least the last three years leading right up until the moment of the accident, at which point he stopped working forever more. The claim was that this accident literally crushed his "eggshell" back condition and thereby ended his working career. He sought roughly half a million dollars in economic and non-economic damages.

For the defendants, Ron contended that the collision was not a serious one, "Tank" allegations notwithstanding. It was argued that only minor injuries were likely sustained, and that any ongoing disability was fully attributable to the plaintiff's prior back condition which was not fundamentally changed by the subject accident. The credibility of plaintiff's disability doctors, and his $18,000 of medical treatment, was very directly and successfully attacked. The jury awarded plaintiff $11,500.

As the defendants had formally offered $20,000, they will now be entitled to recover costs and expert witness fees. These will amount to more than the amount of the verdict, thus the plaintiff will end up owing the defendants money. This is the fourth time in Ron's last six trials where the plaintiffs, to whom affirmative offers had been made, will end up having to pay the defendants.

January 2007 Ronald Zurek (Senior Partner/Los Angeles Office) recently completed a trial where the defendant client was driving a car through a casino parking lot, looking for a parking place. At the end of an aisle he made a left turn and while doing so, struck a pedestrian who was walking in that aisle. Three years later the pedestrian plaintiff lawsuit went to trial, at which time he presented $33,000 of medical expense associated with a neck injury and a knee injury for which he had surgery that documented a torn meniscus.

In defense the contention was that the pedestrian had caused or contributed to the accident himself, and, that the medical treatment was exaggerated and largely unnecessary. The connection between the documented knee injury and the accident was also disputed. The plaintiff had demanded defendant's full $100,000 insurance policy and a $40,000 offer had been made. In the end the jury awarded plaintiff the total sum of $14,197 in damages and then found him to have been 50% negligent in his own right, thus resulting in a net verdict to the plaintiff of $7,098.50. The low verdict amount means that the defendant will recover substantial costs and expert witness fees, likely to be more than $17,000. This will result in a final outcome where the plaintiff himself will owe a judgment, to the defendant he initially sued, of about $10,000.

Ronald Zurek (Senior Partner/Los Angeles Office) obtained a favorable verdict in a case forced to trial when the adverse party would not settle for the full amount of insurance coverage available. In the case, a pedestrian suffered a massive tear to the rotator cuff in his left shoulder when he was hit by Mr. Zurek's client, a gentleman who was driving a Chevy Tahoe. The Plaintiff had surgery and a full year of rehabilitation, but he never did regain full use of the left arm. Plaintiff had $40,000 of medical expenses, $40,000 of lost income and $209,000 of alleged future lost income as a contractor. Defendant offered his $100,000 of insurance coverage, but Plaintiff refused to accept it, seeking considerably more at trial.

In the case, Mr. Zurek's client had been driving westbound when he entered an intersection intending to turn left. He waited for oncoming traffic and ultimately, he said his light had turned to yellow before he began to turn. He was surprised to find the Plaintiff pedestrian crossing in an eastbound crosswalk. He braked but could not avoid striking him. Plaintiff insisted that he had a green/walk signal when he entered the crosswalk, and he was supported in this testimony by the only eyewitness. Negligence on the part of Mr. Zurek's client was admitted, but it was also contended that the Plaintiff and the witness were both mistaken. The pedestrian light had to have been yellow/don't walk, such that Plaintiff was partially responsible for being where he should not have been.

The jury ultimately agreed with Mr. Zurek's contentions. They awarded Plaintiff just over $108,000 in damages but also found him to be 30% responsible for his own injuries. The net verdict was only $75,600. When Defendant's costs and fees are deducted from the verdict, the Defendant will owe the Plaintiff slightly over $55,000.

Ronald Zurek (Senior Partner/Los Angeles Office) successfully defended a car driver who struck and catastrophically injured a young man on a bicycle in Barcenas v Eisman. The bicyclist moved out into traffic lanes when he was allegedly cut off by another driver, and the defendant car ultimately struck him after braking and skidding without success. The claim was that the driver did not react as quickly as she should have, and skid marks left by her tires unequivocally demonstrated a speed in excess of the posted speed limit. Disputing percipient witness testimony and arguing that slightly excessive speed was not negligence, and further that such speed was ultimately not a cause of the accident or injuries either, Ron successfully persuaded the jury to side with his defendant client. No settlement offer was ever made on this case, even when a co-defendant settled with the plaintiff half way through trial.

Ronald Zurek (Senior Partner/Los Angeles Office) recently tried the case of Truong v Cheng, a motor vehicle accident case where his defendant client admitted some negligence for causing an accident that did not seem like a very serious one. However, one year after the accident the plaintiff had a back surgery, which brought his medical bills to about $75,000, and he blamed the defendant for all of it. A plaintiff offer to settle the case for a limited insurance policy was turned down. On the theory that the plaintiff was not seriously injured and that he was perhaps partly at fault for the accident even though the defendant allegedly ran a stop sign in front of him, defendant offered him $6,700, a sum he summarily rejected. Plaintiff's neurosurgeon at trial cost $15,000 but he had trouble on cross-examination nevertheless. At the end of trial the jury awarded plaintiff $3,945, the amount of one of his medical bills before surgery, and nothing else. The jury also felt he was partially at fault for the accident, thus his net recovery was only $2,958.75.

Mark J. Giannamore (Junior Partner/Los Angeles Office)

Trial in Culver City; Division 1; Judge Hilberman; plaintiff's demand was $25,000; the result was a defense verdict. This was an auto accident where we argued Plaintiff stopped suddenly for no reason.

Trial in Santa Monica; Dept. Q; Judge Lefkowitz; the demand was $150,000; the result was a defense verdict after 14 minutes of deliberation. This was an auto v. bicycle case where we argued Plaintiff ran into our car.

Binding arbitration; Judge Alfano' resulted in a defense verdict against all four claimants; demand was $15,000 per claimant.

Trial in Van Nuys; Division 106; Judge Knight; Demand was $25,000. No offers extended and they were both defense verdict.

Raphael v. Del Nostro: Trial in Van Nuys; Division 106; Judge Knight; Demand was $15,000. No offers were made. Defense verdict at the time of trial.

Thomas G. Wianecki (Senior Partner/Irvine Office) Reyes v. McFadden: Trial in Orange County Superior; Dept. C67; Judge Robert Monarch; Minimal contact rear end motor vehicle accident at low speed - admitted liability. Plaintiff in car as a passenger coming home from epidural injection for pre-existing condition; result was a defense verdict.