Ron Zurek was asked to give the opening statement for Masters in Trial in LA on behalf of ABOTA on June 10, 2011 along with other distinguished and experienced trial lawyers.
Archives for News
Chris Wesierski has been asked by the Orange County Bar to teach at the College of Trial Advocacy for 2011.
On Friday March 25, 2011, Chris Wesierski and Mary Bevins obtained a defense verdict 12-0 in a case where a plaintiff fell over twenty five feet from a Palm Tree and was injured severely. Plaintiff had over $600,000 in medical bills and claimed loss of earnings totaling that same number. Additionally, he sued for pain and suffering and punitive damages. Plaintiff claimed the defendant homeowners assured him they had an exterminator come to the premises and get rid of rats in the tree which then attacked him on the date of the incident causing him to lose balance and fall. The defendants will now collect costs and expert fees as they beat the statutory offer previously tendered. Four experts were involved in the suit as well as about 12 witnesses. The case took eight days in complex court in Orange County.
On March 22, 2011 Frank D’Oro received a defense verdict on behalf of of a retail client, Vallarta Supermarkets in the Van Nuys Superior Court. Vallarta is an up-and-coming retail chain with a strong presence in the Hispanic community with more than 25 stores in the Southern California area. Mr. D’Oro handles the majority of their personal injury litigation. In this recent case in Van Nuys, plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on a foreign substance. Within a day of the accident she was represented by a Plaintiff’s attorney and referred for medical treatment on a lien basis after allegedly suffering a fractured shoulder. Testifying on behalf of plaintiff were both a “retail liability expert” and her chiropractor. According to the jurors post trial, the favorable impression made by Vallarta’s full-time janitor and the cross-examination of the chiropractor were critical in the finding of no liability and discounting Plaintiff’s claim of injury.
Paul J. Lipman recently prevailed on appeal, protecting Ronald Zurek’s defense verdict in Graven v. Goodell. At trial, plaintiff bicyclist argued that defendant made a right turn without checking her mirrors, which the defendant admitted to cutting him off. Mr. Zurek argued that there is no duty to check one’s mirrors when turning right if there is no indication that there is any hazard present (the driver testified she did not pass a bicyclist; the bicyclist testified that she did). At issue on appeal was the defendant’s right to the “right to assume the good conduct of others” instruction. Plaintiff argued that this can only be used if the defendant herself used due care, and that she had not checked her mirrors. On appeal, defendant argued, as Mr. Zurek had done at trial, that it is not necessarily negligence to make a right turn without checking one’s mirrors, if here is no indication of a nearby hazard.
Ron Zurek in March of 2011 obtained a defense verdict in an auto claim.
The firm recently obtained a dismissal from a plaintiff seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars after three days of trial. The firm (Chris Wesierski and Christian Counts) represented an individual and company. The individual was accused of continual harassment and plaintiff claimed general and punitive damages.
Plaintiff dismissed for no money after three days of trial.
Chris Wesierski and Ron Templer tried a case where $50 million dollars was at stake.
Two childhood friends had partnered together and purchased land in Hemet. A dispute arose and one partner sued another partner and his business who were the friend’s clients. The jury returned a defense verdict for the defendants.
In February 2011, in the same case, equitable issues were determined by the judge to favor defendants following a one-day trial and over $400,000 was awarded to defendants on their cross-complaint.
Frank D’Oro (Senior Partner/Los Angeles Office) successfully argued a products liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of a punch press machine. The manufacturer failed to recall the machine despite its multiple violations of nationwide safety standards. As a result of an omitted safety guard on the machine, the plaintiff suffered an above-elbow amputation of his left arm when the machine compressed 56 tons of force against his trapped appendage. The plaintiff’s vocational rehabilitation expert opined that the plaintiff would be unable to work for the remainder of his life as a result of this injury. Mr. D’Oro argued that the machine had been defectively designed and that the manufacturer had inadequately warned its consumers of the unreasonable dangers of the product. The jury returned a 10.4 million dollar verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The case was subsequently settled on appeal.