Latest Personal Injury Verdict News

$126 Million Verdict in Oklahoma Police Crash That Killed Teen on Her Way to Take the ACT

A federal jury has awarded $126 million to the family and estate of Emily Gaines, an 18-year-old Moore High School senior killed in December 2019 when an off-duty Moore police sergeant drove his personal vehicle at nearly twice the posted speed limit through an Oklahoma City intersection and struck her car. The verdict, returned in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, is one of the largest civil judgments in the state's history involving law enforcement conduct.What Happened on December 14, 2019 At approximately 7:45 a.m., Sgt. Kyle Lloyd of the Moore Police Department left his home in his personal vehicle after receiving a call from an on-duty colleague, Officer Kyle Wagner. Wagner had locked his keys in a police car at a Chick-Fil-A while participating in the department's annual "Shop with a Cop" event. Wagner asked Lloyd to bring a spare key and asked him to hurry. Lloyd was off-duty. He was driving his personal car. He was not responding to an emergency. Traveling at 94 to 96 miles per hour in a posted 50-mph zone, Lloyd blew through the intersection of South Sooner Road and SE 134th Street in Oklahoma City. He struck the vehicle of Emily Gaines, a Moore High School senior who was on her way to take the ACT college admission exam that morning. The impact caused Emily's vehicle to roll. She died from her injuries. An Oklahoma City police crash investigator testified that Emily had committed no wrongdoing and would have cleared the intersection safely had Lloyd been traveling at the posted speed limit.Criminal Conviction and What Followed Lloyd was charged with first-degree manslaughter. In 2021, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine years in prison with nine years suspended by Cleveland County Judge Jeff Virgin. Prosecutors had asked for an 18-year sentence to match Emily's age at the time of the crash. Assistant District Attorney SuAnne Carlson told the court: "I want that number to be significant to Mr. Lloyd for the rest of his life." The criminal case exposed additional troubling details. Court documents showed that Lloyd had requested and received his own discipline file from a Moore Police Department records clerk just two days after the crash. That file was shredded.The Federal Civil Case Bryan and Dana Gaines, Emily's parents, filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Moore and Kyle Lloyd in 2020. The case, Gaines v. City of Moore, Case No. 5:20-cv-00851, was litigated before Chief Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti. Attorneys Chris J. Hammons, Jonathan R. Ortwein, and Jason Michael Hicks represented the Gaines family. The lawsuit argued that the City of Moore bore responsibility for Lloyd's conduct because he had been acting within the scope of his employment when he left home to assist a fellow officer at an official department event. It also alleged that Lloyd's history of unsafe driving was known to the department and that the city's disciplinary policies effectively tolerated repeat traffic violations by its officers.The Verdict The jury returned a $126 million judgment structured in two parts. Jurors awarded $36 million to the Gaines family for their grief and the loss of Emily's companionship. They awarded an additional $90 million on the Fourteenth Amendment claim, finding that Lloyd had acted "with reckless and callous indifference to Emily Gaines' constitutional rights." The jury ruled that the City of Moore was liable for Lloyd's negligence because he had been acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the crash. Emily Gaines was 18 years old. She was, by all accounts, a student with her whole future ahead of her. She never made it to her ACT exam.What This Verdict Signals The scale of this award reflects a jury's willingness to hold a municipality accountable not just for what an officer does on duty but for the institutional decisions that enabled the conduct in the first place. The plaintiffs successfully argued that Moore's approach to officer discipline created conditions where dangerous driving went unchecked. Civil rights verdicts of this magnitude against municipalities remain relatively rare, which makes this outcome particularly significant for plaintiff attorneys tracking law enforcement liability cases in Oklahoma and across the country. Cases involving off-duty officer conduct and municipal liability are among the most complex in civil litigation. They require proving not just that an officer acted wrongfully but that the city's policies, training, or supervision were a contributing factor. That the jury returned a $90 million constitutional damages award signals that it found the city's failures to be serious and deliberate.Attorneys and Firms Documenting Verdicts Like This Plaintiff attorneys who achieve results like the one in Gaines v. City of Moore deserve to have their work recognized publicly. Major Verdict is a national platform where plaintiff personal injury and civil rights attorneys can showcase their trial verdicts and notable settlements to prospective clients and the broader legal community. If you represented a plaintiff in a significant verdict and want that result documented, create a free profile on Major Verdict and start building your public trial record today.

$14.1M Brevard County Florida Ice Cream Contamination Product Liability Verdict

A Brevard County, Florida jury has awarded $14,147,525.39 to a woman who ate contaminated ice cream containing metal nails and fragments, a product defect that ultimately left her permanently infertile. The verdict, announced in a March 29, 2026 press release from Alpizar Law, closes out a products liability trial that lasted approximately two and a half weeks. The case is one of the more striking Florida food contamination verdicts in recent years, and it carries implications that reach well beyond a single franchise location.What Happened to Brandy Buckley The plaintiff, Brandy Buckley, purchased ice cream from a Malabar franchise of Bruster's Ice Cream. According to evidence presented at trial, the product contained two nails and several small metal fragments. After consuming the ice cream, Buckley required emergency medical treatment. Surgeons removed one of the nails along with multiple metal fragments during the procedure. The medical ordeal did not end there. Following surgery, Buckley developed serious complications. According to trial testimony, those complications included portal vein thrombosis and significant internal bleeding. A second procedure became necessary. Doctors performed an ablation, which, according to testimony in the case, ultimately resulted in permanent infertility.The Jury's Findings After approximately two and a half weeks of trial, the Brevard County jury returned a verdict totaling $14,147,525.39. The jury did not limit responsibility to the individual franchise location. Jurors found the national franchisor liable under an agency theory, extending accountability to Bruster's Ice Cream and its parent company, Malabar Creameries, at the corporate level. That finding is legally significant. It signals that juries are willing to hold national brands responsible for the actions of their franchise operators when the franchisor exercises sufficient control over the business.What Alpizar Law Said The case was tried by Scott Alpizar, with John Alpizar assisting. Both attorneys are with Alpizar Law, a personal injury firm based in Palm Bay, Florida. John Alpizar addressed the jury's role in the outcome directly. "We are grateful that this jury of six fulfilled their civic duty and listened carefully to all of the evidence," he said. "This verdict reflects the seriousness of the harm our client endured and ensures accountability at all levels." Scott Alpizar framed the verdict as a broader consumer safety statement. "This case highlights the critical importance of food safety and the responsibility that both local operators and national brands have to protect consumers," he said. "We are proud to have secured a result that brings justice and accountability for our client."Why This Verdict Matters for Product Liability Law Food contamination cases can be difficult to litigate. Plaintiffs must connect the ingestion of a defective product to a chain of medical complications, some of which may develop weeks or months after the original incident. In Buckley's case, the connection between the contaminated ice cream and permanent infertility involved multiple surgical procedures and a medical timeline that unfolded over time. Building that causation narrative before a jury, and winning on it, represents a meaningful result in consumer products litigation. The agency theory finding against the national franchisor adds another layer. Plaintiffs in franchise cases often face arguments that the corporate parent is too far removed from day-to-day operations to bear liability. The Brevard County jury rejected that argument here. For plaintiff attorneys handling products liability or food contamination cases, verdicts like this one offer a data point on how Florida juries value catastrophic, life-altering injuries where the defendant is a recognizable national brand.The Broader Picture on Food Safety Liability The lawsuit was filed in 2019. The case took roughly seven years from filing to verdict, which is not unusual for complex personal injury litigation involving corporate defendants and medical causation. The result is a reminder that contamination events at franchise businesses carry real exposure for parent companies, not only the franchisees operating individual locations. When a product defect causes injuries this severe, juries are capable of awarding damages that reflect the full scope of the harm. Buckley told PEOPLE that she hopes the outcome prevents similar incidents. "Mistakes happen, even from the most trusted national brands," her attorney said. "She hopes something like this never happens again." Attorneys who have secured significant verdicts in products liability, food safety, or catastrophic injury cases can showcase those results publicly on Major Verdict. The platform gives plaintiff lawyers a dedicated space to display trial outcomes and connect with potential clients researching case values. Join Major Verdict to create your profile and post your verdicts where they can be found.

$70M Verdict - Alabama Jury Holds Tyson Farms Accountable in Flesh-Eating Bacteria Case

A Walker County, Alabama jury delivered a $70 million verdict on March 27, 2026, against Tyson Farms, Inc. and HydraService, Inc. after a boat repairman developed necrotizing fasciitis following a massive wastewater spill into the Black Warrior River. The verdict is the largest in Walker County history. Mark Griffin, a Dora, Alabama resident, has been battling the consequences of that exposure for nearly seven years. According to his attorneys, Griffin still has a bone infection and an open wound today.A Spill That Contaminated a Community's Drinking Water Source In June 2019, approximately 220,000 gallons of chicken rendering wastewater from a Tyson Farms facility in Hanceville, Alabama, spilled into the Mulberry Fork of the Black Warrior River. The wastewater included chicken heads, beaks, blood, bones, and intestines. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management determined the spill occurred when a temporary pipe system, rented from and maintained by HydraService, Inc., failed. The Mulberry Fork flows into the Black Warrior River, which serves as the primary drinking water source for much of Walker County, processed at the Laye-Williams Water Treatment Plant. The 2019 incident was the fourth spill from the Hanceville facility since 2011 and previously resulted in a $3 million settlement with the State of Alabama requiring Tyson to take corrective steps.Boat Repairman Develops Necrotizing Fasciitis Griffin was working as a boat repairman at the time of the spill. According to a statement from his attorneys, he began feeling ill shortly after the incident. Following multiple rounds of treatment and testing, doctors diagnosed him with necrotizing fasciitis, a severe bacterial infection that destroys the body's soft tissue. Court records detail the extensive medical procedures Griffin has endured in the years since. As of the verdict, his legal team confirmed he continues to deal with a bone infection and an open wound. Griffin filed suit in 2020 against Tyson Farms, Inc. and HydraService, Inc., alleging the contaminated wastewater caused his illness.Four-Week Trial, Record Verdict The trial lasted four weeks and featured testimony from more than a dozen witnesses. On March 27, 2026, the jury returned a verdict finding: Wantonness against Tyson Farms, Inc. Negligence against HydraService, Inc. The $70 million award surpasses the previous Walker County record of $10 million, set in a 2017 medical malpractice case handled by two of the same firms involved in this matter.The Legal Team Behind the Win Griffin was represented by two Alabama plaintiff firms working as co-counsel: Josh Vick and Dennis Goldasich of Goldasich, Vick & Fulk Attorneys at Law Bob Bryan and Clay Boylen of Nelson, Bryan, Boylen & Cross in Jasper, Alabama "Our firm has been honored to represent Mr. Griffin in this case," said Vick. "Mark is a great guy and unbelievably resilient. He's been through so much over the past seven years, and to be able to obtain this kind of result for him is simply incredible." Co-counsel Goldasich added: "We are extremely grateful to the jury for their hard work and attentiveness over the course of a four-week trial." Bryan called it "a historic accomplishment," and Boylen said the verdict was "a historic moment for Walker County."Tyson's Response and Ongoing Operations Tyson Foods, which owns Tyson Farms, Inc., issued a statement saying it respects the jury's decision but is "disappointed in the outcome," maintaining that the 2019 spill did not cause Griffin's injuries. The company extended sympathy to Griffin and pointed to infrastructure investments made at the Hanceville facility since acquiring it in August 2018, including permanent underground piping and new air scrubbers. WBRC reported that attorneys for Tyson Farms and HydraService did not respond to requests for comment at the time of publication.What This Verdict Signals for Environmental Liability Cases The Griffin verdict illustrates how juries respond when a defendant's conduct goes beyond ordinary negligence. The jury's finding of wantonness against Tyson Farms carries particular weight, reflecting a determination that the company's conduct was more than careless. For plaintiff attorneys handling environmental exposure and toxic tort cases, the outcome underscores the value of thorough preparation and willingness to take a complex case to trial. Plaintiff lawyers who handle verdicts of this magnitude in Alabama and across the country can showcase their results on Major Verdict, the only platform dedicated to publicly displaying plaintiff trial outcomes and notable settlements. If you or someone you love has been injured due to environmental contamination or toxic exposure, verdicts like this one reflect what juries are prepared to award when the evidence is strong and the legal team is prepared. Find a plaintiff attorney with a proven trial record at Major Verdict.

$1 Million Arizona Semi-Truck vs. Automobile Collision Case Settlement

A Phoenix personal injury firm has secured a $1,000,000 settlement for a client who suffered serious injuries after a commercial tractor-trailer collided with their vehicle, the Phillips Law Group announced on March 30, 2026. Attorney Tim LeDuc led the case, navigating complex issues of commercial trucking liability, federal safety regulations, and corporate responsibility to reach the seven-figure outcome.A Crash With Lasting Consequences When a commercial semi-truck collided with the client's vehicle, the impact left the plaintiff with serious physical injuries requiring extensive medical treatment. The road to recovery involved ongoing rehabilitation and long-term care needs that extended well beyond the initial collision. Cases involving commercial trucking are rarely simple. Unlike standard passenger vehicle accidents, semi-truck collisions can implicate a layered web of responsible parties including the driver, the trucking company, maintenance contractors, and insurers. Each layer requires its own investigation and legal strategy.The Investigation That Made the Difference According to the firm, a detailed investigation and aggressive negotiation approach were central to the outcome. LeDuc and the Phillips Law Group litigation team worked to establish liability across the relevant parties and build a damages case that accounted for the full scope of the client's losses. The $1 million settlement covered: Past medical expenses Ongoing treatment and rehabilitation costs Lost wages Pain and suffering Future damages related to the collision “Commercial trucking cases require a deep understanding of federal safety regulations, company policies, and accident reconstruction,” LeDuc said in a statement. “Our priority was making sure our client received the financial recovery needed to move forward.” Federal trucking regulations govern how long drivers can operate without rest, how vehicles must be maintained, and how cargo must be loaded and secured. When those rules are violated, liability can extend beyond the individual driver to the company that employed them and any contractors responsible for vehicle upkeep. Identifying and proving those connections is where cases of this type are often won or lost.Commercial Trucking Cases in Arizona Arizona highways see heavy commercial truck traffic year-round. The state sits along major freight corridors connecting California ports to distribution hubs across the Southwest, making tractor-trailer collisions a persistent public safety concern. When a passenger vehicle is struck by a commercial truck, the size and weight disparity typically results in injuries that are more severe and more costly than those from standard two-vehicle crashes. Victims frequently face extended recovery timelines, multiple surgeries, and lost income that compounds over months or years. For victims, that often means facing the financial strain of mounting medical bills at the same time insurers are working to minimize their exposure. That financial reality makes thorough legal representation critical. Trucking companies and their insurers are typically represented by experienced defense teams from the moment a claim is filed. An early, aggressive investigation on the plaintiff's side is often what determines whether a victim recovers fair compensation or settles for far less than their case is worth.Find Attorneys Who Handle Cases Like This Plaintiff attorneys who take on commercial trucking cases and secure significant results can display those outcomes publicly on Major Verdict. The only national platform where lawyers showcase detailed trial verdicts and settlements. If you are an injured person researching what cases like yours have been worth, you can browse attorney profiles and results at Major Verdict. Plaintiff attorneys looking to document results like this one are welcome to join Major Verdict and build a public record of their trial and settlement outcomes.

$56.5 Million Verdict for Family of UGA Ph.D. Student Killed by Alleged Wrong-Way Drunk Driver in Georgia

A Georgia judge has awarded $56.5 million to the family of Beth Buchanan, a 23-year-old University of Georgia psychology doctoral student killed in a wrong-way crash while driving her mother to the airport a judgment her family has described as largely symbolic given that the defendant remains a fugitive. Athens-Clark County Judge Charles Auslander issued the award on March 30, 2026, after calculating that Buchanan had approximately 56 years of life ahead of her, each valued at over $1 million. The verdict came in a wrongful death lawsuit filed in 2024 against Cesar Raudales Macias, the alleged drunk driver who prosecutors say caused the crash.The Crash That Killed Beth Buchanan Shortly after 3 a.m. on Feb. 13, 2023, Buchanan was driving her mother, Julie Olson-Buchanan, to the Atlanta airport on University Parkway near Patrick Mill Road SW in Winder, Georgia, roughly 40 miles from downtown Atlanta. According to the lawsuit, Macias, then 25, made an illegal U-turn and began driving the wrong way before slamming head-on into Buchanan's Kia Soul. The impact was catastrophic. One witness at the scene initially thought the car had exploded. Beth Buchanan died at the scene. Her mother survived but suffered serious injuries that required weeks of hospitalization. According to court documents, Julie Olson-Buchanan could be heard on a 911 recording asking whether her daughter was okay and slowly realizing she was not breathing. "Although severe, Ms. Olson-Buchanan's physical injuries were the smallest component of her pain and suffering," plaintiff lawyers wrote in the lawsuit. Her life, the filing stated, will never be the same.Who Was Beth Buchanan Buchanan was a second-year graduate student at the University of Georgia pursuing a doctorate in psychology. In the proceedings, teachers, family members, and friends painted a picture of a young woman of unusual warmth and promise. Judge Auslander captured the testimony in his written order. "One theme, in particular, appeared again and again in the stories shared about Beth: she was a light," Auslander wrote. "Nearly every person who spoke about her described the way she brightened the lives around her. One person even described her as 'golden.' It is rare to be described that way to possess a warmth, brilliance, and kindness that others immediately recognize."The Defendant: A Fugitive Facing Criminal Charges Macias had a blood alcohol content "significantly over the legal limit" at the time of the crash, according to plaintiff attorneys. He was taken to a hospital following the collision but allegedly fled before police could arrest him. He remains a fugitive. Macias faces vehicular manslaughter and DUI charges. The U.S. Marshals Service is actively seeking information on his whereabouts. Because Macias has not been located, the Buchanan family does not expect to collect on the $56.5 million judgment. Plaintiff attorney Rob Snyder of Canella Snyder LLC acknowledged the reality of the situation while framing the verdict in broader terms. "This judgment formally recognizes the immense value of Beth's life and how truly extraordinary she was," Snyder told NBC affiliate WXIA. "This is an important first step towards accountability." The family echoed that sentiment in a statement of their own. "This award is largely symbolic and we do not want it to be mistaken for compensation. No amount of money could ever account for the loss of our daughter or fill the void she left behind," the statement read. "For us, this judgment is about a formal, legal acknowledgment of the beautiful life that was stolen from her and all those who loved her."How Georgia Courts Value Wrongful Death Georgia's wrongful death statute allows the full value of a deceased person's life to be recovered not just lost wages or economic damages, but the full value of the life itself. Judge Auslander's calculation reflected that framework directly: 56 remaining years, each worth more than $1 million. That methodology is notable. In many states, wrongful death recoveries are tied more tightly to economic projections. Georgia's approach gives juries and judges broader latitude to recognize the human cost of a life cut short, including loss of future relationships, experiences, and contributions that cannot be reduced to a salary figure. Cases like this one also illustrate the limits of civil judgments when a defendant cannot be found. A verdict on paper does not guarantee recovery. In cases involving uninsured or absconded defendants, the path to actual compensation is often uncertain regardless of what the court awards.A Verdict That Stands as a Record Whether or not the Buchanan family ever collects, the $56.5 million judgment stands as a formal legal accounting of what Beth Buchanan's life was worth. For the plaintiff bar, cases of this kind demonstrate how wrongful death litigation can serve purposes beyond financial recovery establishing accountability and creating a public record when the criminal justice system has not yet been able to do so. Plaintiff attorneys who handle wrongful death cases across Georgia and nationwide can document results like this on Major Verdict, the only national platform where lawyers publicly showcase trial verdicts and notable outcomes. Browse attorney profiles and results at Major Verdict, or if you are a plaintiff attorney ready to put your record on the map, join Major Verdict today.

$1.4 Million Verdict After Lawn Mower Launches Golf Ball Into Man's Eye at Long Beach Course

A Los Angeles County jury awarded $1.4 million to a Long Beach man after a lawn mower at a city golf course flung a golf ball through a café window, sending glass shards into his left eye and leaving him with permanent nerve damage. The verdict, returned on March 19, 2026, came after American Golf Corporation admitted liability before trial, leaving the jury to determine damages alone. The case centered on a piece of maintenance equipment that lacked basic safety features and a corporation that knew it.What Happened at Heartwell Golf Course On June 14, 2024, Thomas Graham, a man in his mid-50s, was at Heartwell Golf Course in Long Beach with his son. While ordering food at the course's on-site café, a lawn mower operating nearby struck a golf ball that had been left in the grass. The ball was launched at an estimated 200 miles per hour, according to the firm that represented Graham. The ball shattered the café window. Glass shards struck the left side of Graham's face, and one small fragment entered his left eye. According to the lawsuit, filed in October 2024, the mowing equipment lacked deflectors and other basic safety features that would have prevented the ball from being projected toward the café area. American Golf Corporation, which operates Heartwell Golf Course along with more than 40 public and private courses across the country, admitted liability prior to trial on that basis.The Injury and Its Lasting Impact The glass fragment caused permanent damage to the cornea and nerves in Graham's left eye. According to attorneys at Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP, who represented Graham at trial, his symptoms include a persistent foreign body sensation, daily discomfort, chronic redness, and severe headaches that at times escalate into migraines. Those symptoms have continued from the date of the incident and are expected to persist indefinitely. Graham has worked for the Orange County Sheriff's Department for more than two decades and continues to serve as a commander despite his injuries. Before the accident, coworkers described him as a people person and a strong mentor. His attorney, Jon Davidi, said the constant pain began to change his personality. Graham continues to see ophthalmologists exploring potential treatment, though there is no guarantee he will ever be pain-free. Davidi said his client is trying to remain hopeful that symptoms will slowly improve over time.Admitted Liability, Damages-Only Trial Because American Golf Corporation admitted fault before trial, the jury's sole task was to determine what Graham's injuries were worth. The 12-person jury awarded $1.4 million for pain and mental suffering. Davidi described the award as wholly appropriate, saying it recognized what was taken from Graham. Attorneys for American Golf Corporation did not respond to press requests for comment. Brigitta Cymerint, another member of Graham's trial team at Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP, noted that injuries not visible from the outside can carry profound and permanent consequences for a person's daily life. Co-counsel Dan Dunbar also represented Graham at trial alongside Davidi and Cymerint.What This Verdict Signals for Premises Liability Attorneys Cases involving admitted liability put the entire focus on damages presentation, and this verdict illustrates how effectively a well-documented injury narrative can hold up in that context. Graham's case combined objective medical evidence of permanent nerve damage with detailed testimony about its impact on his work performance, personality, and quality of life. For plaintiff attorneys handling premises liability cases against large corporate operators, this outcome is a useful reference point: a mid-range damages award for a single-eye injury with chronic but non-blinding effects, against a defendant that had already conceded fault. Attorneys who handle verdicts like this one can document and showcase their results on Major Verdict, a free platform built for plaintiff personal injury lawyers. Join Major Verdict to create your public profile and add your trial record. If you are researching personal injury verdicts in California or looking for an attorney with documented trial results, browse attorney profiles on Major Verdict to find lawyers who show their work.

$266K Verdict in Santa Fe Slip and Fall Finds City Partially Liable

A Santa Fe County jury awarded Kathy Baca approximately $266,000 after finding the City of Santa Fe partially responsible for injuries she sustained in a fall near the Palace of the Governors. The verdict, returned following a three-day jury trial, centered on a damaged pedestrian safety mat that had come loose from the sidewalk at one of the most heavily trafficked intersections in downtown Santa Fe. The case drew attention not just for the outcome, but for what it revealed about how the city maintained infrastructure designed specifically to protect people with disabilities.What Happened on the Plaza Baca, then 54 years old and visiting from Orange County, California, was in Santa Fe in 2021 to attend her brother-in-law's funeral. While strolling around the Plaza with her husband, she tripped over a "detectable warning surface" mat located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Palace and Washington avenues. These mats, recognizable by their raised-bump texture, are required by the Americans with Disabilities Act at locations where sidewalks meet curbs. They alert pedestrians with vision disabilities that they are approaching traffic. According to Baca's lawsuit, the mat at this location had never been inset into the sidewalk as proper construction standards require, and at the time of her fall it was detached from the surface entirely, with a vertical gap where it had come loose. Baca broke her elbow in the fall.The Jury's Findings The jury found the city negligent and calculated Baca's total damages at $750,000. However, applying New Mexico's comparative fault rules, the jury apportioned responsibility between the parties: 35% to the city, and 65% to Baca. Under that apportionment, her recoverable award came to approximately $266,000. Plaintiff's attorney Todd Wertheim said in a statement that the mat violated both ADA and New Mexico Department of Transportation safety standards that were known to the city. He said the city had failed to maintain the surface correctly for years. The city had attempted to settle the case before trial, according to city spokesperson Peter Olson, but the parties were too far apart on value to reach an agreement.Comparative Fault and What It Means New Mexico follows a pure comparative fault system, meaning a plaintiff's recovery is reduced proportionally by their own percentage of fault. In this case, the jury's finding that Baca was 65% responsible reduced a $750,000 damages award to roughly $266,000. Comparative fault determinations in premises liability cases often turn on what the plaintiff knew or should have known about a hazard, and whether they exercised reasonable care. The jury's split here, while reducing Baca's recovery significantly, still affirmed that the city bore legal responsibility for the condition of the mat. For plaintiff attorneys handling municipal negligence cases, the verdict illustrates both the opportunity and the challenge: gross failures in public infrastructure can support substantial damages findings, but apportionment battles remain a central front in these trials.The Broader Implication Wertheim's statement after the verdict pointed beyond the individual outcome. He noted that detectable warning surfaces are designed to help people with disabilities, but become hazards to everyone when they fall into disrepair. As of the day the verdict was reported, a mark remained on the downtown sidewalk where the mat that caused Baca's fall had once been. A similar mat on the other side of the same intersection, while affixed, was also not inset into the sidewalk. The verdict may prompt the city to reassess how it inspects and maintains these surfaces across its sidewalk network, particularly in high-foot-traffic areas near the Plaza.Track Verdicts Like This One on Major Verdict Cases involving municipal negligence and premises liability produce some of the most fact-intensive jury determinations in personal injury law. The apportionment numbers, damages calculations, and liability theories vary widely by jurisdiction and case type. Major Verdict is a free public platform where plaintiff personal injury attorneys document their trial results and notable settlements. If you are a New Mexico plaintiff attorney with verdicts worth sharing, create your free profile at Major Verdict and add your results to the public record. If you are researching personal injury outcomes in New Mexico or looking for an attorney with a documented trial history, browse our member profiles to find lawyers who show their work.

$3,967,000 Publix Slip and Fall Verdict in Osceola County, Florida

A Florida jury awarded nearly $4 million to a 30-year-old mother of three after she slipped on liquid in a Publix Super Markets beverage aisle, with the jury finding the grocery chain 100% responsible for the injuries that followed. The verdict, returned in Osceola County following a six-day trial, came after Publix's last settlement offer stood at just $600,000.What Happened in the Publix Store On June 5, 2023, Victoria Marcano slipped on liquid in the beverage aisle of a Publix location. Evidence presented at trial showed that Publix employees had already cleaned liquid from the same area before her fall, a fact that proved significant in the jury's assessment of the grocer's responsibility. The case was filed in Osceola County as Victoria Marcano v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., Case No. 2024-CA-001128.Three Surgeries and a Long Road Ahead The injuries Marcano sustained were serious. She underwent three spinal surgeries: one on her neck and two on her back, with additional surgeries anticipated. Marcano was 30 years old and raising three children at the time of the incident. Her attorneys presented evidence of the long-term impact the injuries had on her life and her ability to care for her family.Publix's Defense and the Jury's Answer Publix denied liability throughout the litigation and argued that Marcano was not injured as a result of the fall. The defense went further, attempting to attribute her spinal injuries to complaints related to carrying her children in the months before the incident. The jury rejected both arguments entirely. Rather than assign partial fault, jurors found Publix 100% responsible and awarded $3,967,000 in damages, more than six times the company's pre-trial settlement offer of $600,000.The Legal Team: Rubenstein Law The plaintiff was represented by Nicholas T. Smith, who served as first-chair trial attorney, alongside trial attorney Dayna Nilsen and senior partner Raul E. Garcia Jr., all of Rubenstein Law. After the verdict, Garcia Jr. commented that the jury listened to the evidence and held Publix accountable. He described Marcano as a young mother raising three children, already through three surgeries with more expected, and said the team was pleased to have secured the outcome she deserved. The legal team noted the verdict underscores the importance of holding property owners to account when hazardous conditions go unaddressed despite known risk.What This Verdict Signals for Premises Liability Cases Slip and fall cases at major retail chains are often met with aggressive defenses and low settlement offers. This result illustrates a few things worth noting: Prior notice matters. The evidence that Publix employees had cleaned the same area before Marcano's fall was central to establishing that the hazard was known, or should have been known, and not corrected. Jury skepticism of "blame the plaintiff" defenses. Attributing a plaintiff's spinal injuries to childcare activities is a common defense tactic. Here, it did not resonate with the jury. Settlement offers can be dramatically low. The gap between Publix's $600,000 offer and the $3,967,000 verdict is a reminder that pre-trial offers don't always reflect a case's full value at trial. Plaintiff attorneys handling premises liability cases in Florida can browse verdicts and connect with attorneys who have taken these cases to trial at Major Verdict.Explore Florida Personal Injury Verdicts If you were injured at a grocery store or retail location in Florida, results like this one reflect what juries are willing to award when negligence is proven. Understanding verdict history in your state can help you evaluate your options. Explore Florida personal injury verdicts and public resources on Major Verdict, or browse attorney profiles to find a plaintiff lawyer with a verified track record at trial. Plaintiff attorneys: Major Verdict is where you display your trial results publicly: verdicts, settlements, and the stories behind them. A free profile takes minutes to set up.

$108.6M Philadelphia Verdict Against Jefferson Health in Forceps Delivery Brain Injury Case

A Philadelphia jury has awarded $108.6 million against Jefferson Health and an affiliated pediatric practice after a forceps-assisted delivery in December 2018 left a newborn with permanent brain damage. The verdict, returned March 20, 2026, is the largest medical malpractice award in the city since a $183 million verdict against Penn Medicine three years ago in a nearly identical category of case. The child, identified only as KJ in court filings, is now 7½ years old. According to his attorneys, he will live his entire life with the cognitive function of a toddler.What Happened During the Delivery KJ was born at what is now called Jefferson Einstein Philadelphia Hospital in December 2018, three years before Jefferson Health acquired Einstein Healthcare Network. His delivery required the use of forceps, a tool used in certain difficult births to guide the baby through the birth canal. Forceps deliveries carry a rare but serious risk: bleeding inside the baby's skull. That is what happened to KJ. According to the lawsuit, filed in July 2024, he suffered permanent neurologic injury as a result. Einstein Pediatrics doctors were found liable for the brain injuries by the jury.The Attorneys' Case The case was tried by E. Merritt Lentz and Briggs Bedigian of Gilman and Bedigian LLC, the same Philadelphia firm that won the $183 million Penn Medicine verdict in 2023. Lentz described KJ's prognosis in stark terms after the verdict. "He will grow up, he will grow into adolescence, he will grow into a young man, he will grow into an adult, but he will retain the brain of essentially a toddler," Lentz said. That outcome is reflected in how the jury structured its award. Of the $108.6 million total, $106.1 million covers future medical and other expenses projected over an expected additional lifespan of 68 years. The remaining amounts cover pain and suffering ($1.4 million) and loss of earnings capacity ($1 million). The future expense payments will be made quarterly and include the option for specialized care at an institution for people with brain injuries.Jefferson's Response and the Road to Appeal Jefferson Health disputed the verdict immediately and announced plans to appeal. In a statement, the health system said the jury was not permitted to hear crucial evidence showing its clinicians provided exceptional care, and that liability was based on theories not supported by the medical record. Jefferson characterized the jury's picture of the medical facts as misleading. That position faces a difficult precedent. When Penn Medicine appealed its own $183 million Philadelphia birth injury verdict, the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld it last year. By the time that appeal concluded, delay damages had grown the total judgment to $207 million. Jefferson's appeal, if pursued, carries the same risk of a larger final judgment.Philadelphia's Nuclear Verdict Reputation Philadelphia juries are well known within the legal industry for returning what are called nuclear verdicts, awards so large they reshape how defendants and insurers calculate risk. Though most medical malpractice trials end in favor of healthcare providers, the possibility of a nine-figure award has become a significant concern for hospital systems with large labor and delivery operations. The Jefferson verdict is the second time in three years that a Philadelphia birth injury case has produced a verdict above $100 million. Both cases were handled by Gilman and Bedigian. Both involved allegations of care failures during delivery. And in both cases, the defendants announced their intention to appeal. For plaintiff attorneys, the pattern is significant. It signals that Philadelphia juries are willing to hold large health systems accountable for birth injury outcomes at a level that matches the lifetime cost of catastrophic neurological damage.What Plaintiff Attorneys Should Know Birth injury cases involving forceps and intracranial hemorrhage require expert testimony on obstetric standards, neonatal neurology, and long-term care projections. The structure of this verdict, with the overwhelming majority of damages allocated to future medical expenses rather than pain and suffering, reflects a litigation strategy built around lifetime cost-of-care modeling. Plaintiff attorneys handling similar birth injury cases can track how comparable verdicts are being tried and won across the country at Major Verdict. Lawyers who have secured results like this one can add their verdicts to the platform, building a public record of their trial outcomes that clients and referring attorneys can find. For Pennsylvania residents researching birth injury cases or medical malpractice outcomes, Major Verdict's Pennsylvania personal injury resources page is a starting point for understanding what cases like these have produced at verdict.

$18M Maryland Medical Malpractice Verdict After Hospital Delays Cost Woman Her Leg

A Prince George's County jury has awarded $18 million to a young mother who lost her leg after what her attorneys described as hours-long surgical delays at a local hospital. The verdict against Prince George's Hospital Center is one of the largest medical malpractice awards in recent Maryland history, though the state's damage cap will reduce what plaintiff Jamie White actually collects to approximately $4.5 million. The case draws attention not just for its size, but for what it reveals about patient safety, surgical urgency, and the real-world consequences of Maryland's limits on malpractice recovery.A Routine Injury That Became a Five-Year Ordeal In 2020, Jamie White was 23 years old and walking to work when she slipped on ice and dislocated her knee. It was the kind of accident that happens to thousands of people every year. For most, it means surgery, physical therapy, and recovery. For White, it became the beginning of a five-year fight for her life, her limb, and eventually her day in court. A dislocated knee can damage the popliteal artery, the blood vessel running behind the knee joint. When vascular injury goes untreated, the tissue downstream is starved of oxygen. Time is the critical variable. Delays in surgical repair can mean the difference between a leg saved and a leg lost. According to White's legal team, that window was wasted. Twice.What the Attorneys Alleged: Two Surgeries, Two Delays Over the course of a nearly five-week trial, attorneys for White alleged that two of her surgeries were delayed by caregivers for hours, depriving her leg of oxygen during critical treatment windows. White says she underwent nearly 30 surgeries over eight months in an effort to save the limb. Those efforts ultimately failed. Her leg was amputated above the knee. Her attorney, Karen Evans of The Cochran Firm, argued that the standard of care White received fell below what any patient in Maryland should expect, regardless of which hospital treats them. "The standard of care should be the same, no matter where you get care," Evans said. "There is no lower standard of care for the residents of Prince George's County." That framing, centered on equity in healthcare quality across communities, gave the case a dimension beyond the individual plaintiff.The Jury's Verdict and Maryland's Damage Cap After five weeks of testimony, the Prince George's County jury returned a verdict of $18 million in favor of Jamie White. But under Maryland law, there is a cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. Non-economic damages cover pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of quality of life, which are the categories most relevant in a case like White's. The cap significantly limits recovery for these losses, regardless of what a jury decides. As a result, the amount White will actually receive is approximately $4.5 million, roughly 25 cents on every dollar the jury awarded. Maryland's cap is adjusted annually for inflation, but it consistently draws criticism from plaintiff attorneys who argue it punishes the most seriously injured patients. Catastrophic injuries such as amputations, permanent disability, and severe disfigurement involve the highest non-economic losses, so the cap hits hardest precisely where the harm is greatest. The gap between the jury's $18 million verdict and the approximately $4.5 million White will recover is itself a story about how damage caps work in practice.The Hospital's Response The University of Maryland Capital Region Medical Center, which operates Prince George's Hospital Center, disputed the verdict's implications in a statement. The hospital said it was grateful for the opportunity to defend the care its providers rendered, and stated its belief that White was treated in a timely manner and received excellent care. That position was rejected by the jury after nearly five weeks of evidence.Life After the Verdict White, now a mother of two, spoke about what the trial's conclusion means to her and what keeps her going. "You wake up regular one day, and then all of a sudden, one day, it all comes spiraling down," she said. "It was hard. I didn't plan this." She said her children are her focus now. "When they do get older, they'll see how resilient their mom is." The verdict does not undo the amputation, or the years of surgeries, or the life White had before 2020. But it represents a jury's judgment that the hospital's care fell short and that the consequences were real and severe.What This Case Means for Plaintiff Attorneys For medical malpractice attorneys, the White case illustrates several recurring trial themes: the importance of documenting surgical timelines, the challenge of arguing vascular injury causation, and the frustrating reality of statutory damage caps that limit jury awards regardless of the evidence. Cases involving surgical delays and catastrophic limb loss require expert testimony on vascular surgery standards, anesthesia timing, and hospital protocol. A five-week trial signals that the defense mounted a serious challenge, and the jury found for the plaintiff anyway. Attorneys tracking Maryland malpractice verdicts, or handling similar surgical delay cases, can find comparable trial results and attorney profiles at Major Verdict. Plaintiff lawyers who have tried and won cases like this one can also list their verdicts on the platform, building a public record of their trial experience that clients and peers can find. For Maryland residents researching malpractice cases or patient rights, Major Verdict's Maryland personal injury resources page offers a reference point for verdicts and legal context in the state.

$10 Million Oregon Verdict: Jury Holds Physicians Accountable After ER Delay Left Man Permanently Paralyzed

A Portland jury awarded $10 million to a Clark County diesel mechanic who spent nearly 17 hours in an emergency department as a preventable spinal infection progressed toward permanent paralysis. The verdict, returned in March 2026, sends a clear message about what juries expect when a patient arrives with a rapidly deteriorating neurological condition. The case is John Douglas Cox vs. Kaiser, et al., Multnomah County Case No. 23CV40984.A Treatable Emergency, Left Untreated In December 2021, John Douglas Cox, then 62 years old, developed a severe infection connected to a recently implanted spinal cord stimulator. The condition, a spinal epidural abscess, is a known medical emergency. When left untreated, it can compress the spinal cord rapidly and cause permanent paralysis. Cox arrived at the emergency department by ambulance, already experiencing sepsis and new-onset paralysis beginning at the T7 level of his spine. One emergency physician recognized the acute neurological decline and ordered imaging. What followed, according to evidence presented at trial, was a cascade of delays that sealed Cox's fate.What Went Wrong in the ER Hospital staff could not confirm whether Cox's spinal cord stimulator was MRI-compatible. Rather than contacting the device manufacturer directly or escalating the issue through the chain of command, staff waited for authorization from Cox's out-of-town physician. Cox sat in the emergency department while that authorization process dragged on. No spine surgeon or neurosurgeon was consulted during that window, despite the hospital having contracts in place for 24-hour specialist coverage. When imaging was eventually performed, it targeted the wrong region of the spine entirely. The underlying abscess was missed. Cox was ultimately transferred to Kaiser, where additional imaging finally identified the spinal epidural abscess. Surgery was performed more than 27 hours after he first arrived at the hospital. By then, the damage to his spinal cord was permanent. Medical experts testified at trial that early diagnosis and surgical decompression are critical to preventing permanent spinal cord injury in cases involving epidural abscesses. The defense argued that earlier intervention would not have changed the outcome. The jury rejected that argument.The Human Cost Cox worked as a diesel mechanic for Clark County, Washington for decades and was weeks away from completing 30 years of service when the December 2021 incident occurred. After the delayed diagnosis, he pushed himself to return to work. He used a wheelchair first, then a walker. Infections and hip complications eventually forced him to leave the job he had devoted his career to, just months before he would have hit the 30-year mark. Today, Cox can walk short distances and climb the stairs in his home with handrails. He lives with permanent neurological damage and lasting mobility limitations. His trial attorney, Jane Paulson of Paulson Coletti Trial Attorneys PC in Portland, described the weight of the case in a statement following the verdict. "Our client did everything he could to get help," she said, noting that Cox emailed his own doctor from the emergency room to report he was going paralyzed and feared he might never walk again. "This case was about accountability and patient safety," Paulson added. "We hope this verdict will help improve how patients with neurological emergencies are treated in emergency rooms."How the Jury Allocated Fault The jury returned a $10 million verdict and apportioned fault between two parties. It assigned 80% of the fault to Kaiser and 20% to the physicians who treated Cox at the emergency department. Kaiser was not a defendant at trial. Oregon follows modified comparative fault rules, which affects how damages are ultimately calculated and collected. The specifics of how the fault allocation affects Cox's recovery were not detailed in the publicly available record.Why This Verdict Matters Emergency departments handle patients with complex implanted devices every day. Spinal cord stimulators, pacemakers, drug infusion pumps, and other devices can complicate diagnostic imaging. But complexity in the process does not excuse failure to escalate, failure to consult available specialists, or failure to act with urgency when a patient's neurological status is actively deteriorating. This verdict reflects jury expectations that hospitals honor their own on-call contracts and that emergency physicians take concrete steps when the standard approach hits an obstacle. The fact that Cox emailed his doctor from the ER to report his own paralysis in real time made the inaction during those hours difficult for any juror to rationalize. For plaintiff attorneys handling ER delay and hospital negligence cases in Oregon, this verdict provides a data point on what a Portland jury will award when the facts are clearly documented and the injury is severe and permanent. Cases like Cox's are the reason Major Verdict exists. Plaintiff attorneys who have secured significant verdicts and settlements can create a free profile on Major Verdict and display their results publicly, giving the public a way to find lawyers with the kind of trial record that produces outcomes like this one. Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements, for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself.

$22 Million Ohio Wrongful Death Verdict - Jury Finds Work From Home Denial Led to Newborn's Death

A Hamilton County, Ohio jury has returned a $22 million verdict against Total Quality Logistics (TQL), one of the largest freight brokerage companies in the United States, in a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from the death of a newborn. Jurors found that TQL's refusal to allow a pregnant, high-risk employee to work from home, as directed by her physician, set off a chain of events that ended with the death of baby Magnolia just hours after birth.What the Jury Found According to attorneys for the plaintiff, the jury concluded that TQL bore responsibility for the death of the newborn after the company initially denied a medically supported accommodation request. The plaintiff, identified by last name as Walsh, underwent a procedure in February 2021 related to her pregnancy and was classified as high-risk. Her doctors placed her on modified bed rest and directed her to work from home. TQL denied that request. A third party eventually intervened, and the work-from-home accommodation was granted. But by then, according to the plaintiff's legal team, the damage had been done.A Timeline With Tragic Consequences On February 24, Walsh experienced complications and was admitted to the hospital. She gave birth to baby Magnolia at 20 weeks and six days of gestation. The infant died several hours after birth. The lawsuit argued that the delayed approval of the accommodation request directly contributed to those complications and ultimately to Magnolia's death. The case drew attention to the intersection of workplace accommodation law, pregnancy protections, and employer duty of care for employees with high-risk medical conditions.TQL's Response TQL issued a statement following the verdict, expressing condolences to the Walsh family while disputing the jury's findings. "We extend our condolences to the Walsh family. We disagree with the verdict and the way the facts were characterized at trial. We are evaluating legal options and remain committed to supporting the health and well-being of our employees," a company spokeswoman said. TQL is evaluating legal options, which means the verdict could be subject to post-trial motions or appeal. The $22 million award should be considered in that context.The Broader Significance This verdict arrives at a moment of heightened public attention to pregnancy-related workplace rights. Federal law, including the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which took effect in 2023, requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. While this case arose from events in 2021, it reflects ongoing litigation over how employers handle accommodation requests from pregnant workers, particularly those classified as high-risk by their physicians. A $22 million verdict in a case like this sends a signal about how Ohio juries view an employer's obligation to act when a doctor has issued explicit instructions and an employee's health, and the health of her unborn child, is at stake.What This Verdict Means for Plaintiff Attorneys Cases involving pregnancy accommodation denials and resulting harm have become an active area of plaintiff litigation. The theory of liability here, that a delayed or denied accommodation directly caused a medical crisis and the death of a newborn, required the jury to connect corporate policy to a deeply personal tragedy. For plaintiff lawyers tracking verdict trends in employment and wrongful death litigation, this case illustrates how Ohio juries are willing to hold large employers accountable when medical accommodations are not handled with urgency. Attorneys who handle cases involving pregnancy discrimination, wrongful death, or employer negligence can display results like this on their Major Verdict profile, giving prospective clients and referring attorneys a clear picture of their track record at trial. Join Major Verdict to create your profile and start showcasing your results.

$45 Million Settlement After FlyAway Airport Shuttle Strikes Mother and Son in Los Angeles Crosswalk

A Los Angeles trial attorney secured a $45 million trial settlement after a FlyAway airport shuttle bus struck a mother and her adult son as they crossed a marked crosswalk in Los Angeles, leaving the woman with catastrophic brain injuries. The case resolved on March 4, 2025, during trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court, shortly before closing arguments. The result stands as a significant outcome in Los Angeles pedestrian injury litigation and raises pointed questions about municipal liability when cities outsource transportation services.What Happened on August 3, 2023 According to evidence presented at trial, Armida Lincome, 58, and her son Christofer Bishop, 29, were crossing a marked crosswalk with an active walk signal when they were struck by a FlyAway airport shuttle bus operated by driver Douglas Herrera. The lawsuit alleged that Herrera made an unsafe left turn and failed to yield to the pedestrians, who had the legal right of way. Lincome suffered catastrophic brain injuries as a result of the impact. Bishop was also struck in the collision. The case was filed as Armida Lincome and Christofer Bishop v. Four-Season Travel LLC, Douglas Herrera, 9139249 Canada Inc., Bus.com US LLC, Bus.com Leasing LLC, and the City of Los Angeles.The City Could Not Escape Liability One of the central legal questions in the case was whether the City of Los Angeles could shield itself from liability by pointing to the private contractor operating the FlyAway shuttle service. The court rejected that argument. According to plaintiff's counsel, the City could not delegate away its responsibility because operating the airport shuttle is a nondelegable duty under California law. That doctrine holds certain public obligations to a standard that cannot be transferred to a third party, even through a contract. "The City of Los Angeles could not avoid liability because operating the airport shuttle is a nondelegable duty," said Christopher Montes de Oca, lead trial counsel for the plaintiffs. That legal theory proved decisive. Of the $45 million total, approximately $40 million was paid by insurers for the City of Los Angeles, while $5 million came from insurers for Four-Season Travel LLC and the driver.How the Case Resolved The plaintiffs presented their full case at trial before the matter resolved through mediated settlement. According to reports, the parties reached the $45 million agreement shortly before closing arguments were scheduled to be delivered. Trial settlements of this kind, reached after evidence has been presented but before a jury deliberates, often reflect the strength of the plaintiff's case at the close of evidence. Defendants in this posture have seen the full presentation and are weighing their exposure against a final verdict.About Lead Trial Counsel Christopher Montes de Oca Christopher Montes de Oca is a Los Angeles-based plaintiff trial attorney at the Law Offices of Christopher Montes de Oca. He was named Rising Star Trial Lawyer of the Year by the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA), the nation's largest local association of plaintiff trial attorneys. He has been recognized in Best Lawyers in America for Personal Injury Litigation and selected to Super Lawyers, where he ranks among the Top 100 Super Lawyers in Southern California. He also holds an AV Preeminent Peer Review Rating and has been named Whittier Bar Association Member of the Year. This $45 million result adds to a record that already included a nationally recognized eight-figure jury verdict ranked among the Top 50 Car Accident Verdicts and Top 100 Personal Injury Verdicts in the United States for that year. Plaintiff attorneys with records like this one can display their verdicts and settlements publicly on Major Verdict, where the platform lets trial results speak directly to prospective clients and referring attorneys.What This Settlement Signals for Pedestrian Cases Involving Public Transit Pedestrian cases involving government-affiliated transportation tend to be complex. They typically involve questions of sovereign immunity, the scope of public duty, and whether a private operator's negligence can be attributed back to the contracting government entity. The nondelegable duty theory used here has significant implications for plaintiffs in similar cases across California and beyond. When a municipality operates a public transportation service through a private contractor and a pedestrian is seriously injured, this outcome demonstrates that the city's involvement does not disappear simply because the driver's paycheck comes from a private company. For plaintiff attorneys handling pedestrian injury cases in California, this settlement reinforces the value of naming and pursuing the government entity early in litigation, particularly when the transportation function is one the public would reasonably associate with the city itself. Attorneys who track verdict and settlement trends by case type and jurisdiction can browse results across all 50 states at Major Verdict's latest verdict news.Conclusion The $45 million settlement in Lincome and Bishop v. Four-Season Travel LLC et al. reflects what can happen when a plaintiff's trial team builds a complete case and presses a city that cannot legally sidestep responsibility for its transportation services. Armida Lincome crossed a crosswalk with the light in her favor. The jury would have heard that. The city settled before it had to find out how much that fact was worth. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured as a pedestrian, verdicts and settlements like this one show what juries and defendants are willing to reckon with when the evidence is strong and the attorney is prepared. Find a plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict who has the trial record to back it up.