Latest Wrongful Death Verdict & Settlement News

Browse all verdict news articles related to wrongful death cases.

04/28/26 April 28th, 2026 - Connecticut Wrongful Death

Connecticut Jury Awards $15.2 Million in Wrongful Death of Waterbury Crash Passenger

A Waterbury Superior Court jury awarded $15,235,245 to the family of Dominique Dalessio, a 20-year-old Bethlehem, Connecticut woman killed in an April 2020 head-on collision. The civil verdict, returned April 28, 2026 after roughly three hours of deliberation, found defendant Jamall Smith liable for negligence in Dalessio's death. Dalessio had been a passenger in Smith's BMW when he crossed the centerline of East Main Street in Waterbury and struck an oncoming Honda Accord. Plaintiff's counsel was Christopher Houlihan of Hartford-based RisCassi & Davis.Case at a Glance Verdict: $15,235,245 ($15 million noneconomic + $235,245 economic) Case Type: Wrongful Death (Auto Accident, Centerline Crossover) Court: Waterbury Superior Court, Connecticut Verdict Date: April 28, 2026 Jury Deliberation: Approximately 3 hours Crash Date: April 22, 2020 Crash Location: East Main Street near Newington Avenue, Waterbury, CT Plaintiff: Family of Dominique Dalessio (deceased, age 20, of Bethlehem, CT) Defendant: Jamall Smith Plaintiff Attorney: Christopher Houlihan, RisCassi & Davis (Hartford, CT)What Happened on East Main Street? According to the lawsuit and Waterbury Police Department records cited in the case, Smith was driving a BMW westbound on East Main Street near the intersection of Newington Avenue around 10:30 p.m. on April 22, 2020. He crossed into the opposing lane and struck a 2007 Honda Accord traveling in the opposite direction. Dalessio, a passenger in Smith's vehicle, was taken to a hospital with life-threatening injuries and died six days later. Smith and the driver of the Honda were also hospitalized. The Honda driver suffered serious injuries but survived.What Did the Jury Find? After approximately three hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and assessed total damages of $15,235,245. Of that, $235,245 was awarded as economic damages, covering medical and funeral expenses, and $15 million was awarded as noneconomic damages for the loss of Dalessio's life. Court filings show the jury found Smith acted with "reckless disregard for the safety of others" and that his conduct was the cause of the crash and Dalessio's fatal injuries. The plaintiff's complaint had alleged that Smith was driving under the influence and at an unreasonable speed, but the jury did not find either of those allegations proven. The verdict on liability rested on negligence and reckless conduct, not intoxication. "This was a profoundly tragic loss," Houlihan said in a statement following the verdict. "Dominique's life was taken far too soon due to reckless and preventable conduct. While no verdict can ever replace her, we are grateful the jury delivered justice in her name and provided her family with a meaningful measure of accountability and closure."The Criminal Case Came First, and Ended Much Lighter Smith was arrested by Waterbury police in May 2020 on charges that included second-degree manslaughter, second-degree assault, illegal operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence, and failure to drive in the proper lane. The criminal case resolved nearly five years later. In April 2025, Smith was convicted of "misconduct with a motor vehicle," a Connecticut charge meaningfully less severe than the manslaughter and DUI charges originally filed. He was sentenced three months later to five years in jail, fully suspended, and five years of probation. He served no incarceration time on the conviction. The civil verdict, returned roughly one year after the criminal disposition, delivered the larger accountability outcome.Why a Civil Verdict Matters Even After a Criminal Conviction Civil and criminal cases run on different standards of proof. Criminal prosecutors must prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt." Civil plaintiffs only need to prove their case by a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning more likely than not. That is one reason a defendant can be acquitted of a criminal charge or pleaded down to a lesser one yet still be found liable in civil court for the same underlying conduct. Civil cases also serve a different purpose. Criminal convictions punish the defendant. Civil verdicts compensate the people harmed. For families who lose a loved one, the civil suit is often the only path to financial accountability for the lifetime of harm caused, regardless of what happens in the criminal courtroom. The Dalessio case is a clean illustration of that pattern. The criminal court reduced the case to a misdemeanor-level conviction with no jail time. The civil jury, hearing essentially the same conduct, valued the loss of Dalessio's life at $15 million. The case adds to a growing body of Connecticut verdict news where families have pursued civil accountability after criminal cases ended in lighter outcomes. Results like this one show what civil juries are willing to award when a plaintiff team builds the case patiently across years of criminal and civil proceedings. 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.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What's the difference between a civil wrongful death verdict and a criminal conviction? Civil and criminal cases run on different standards of proof. Criminal prosecutors must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." Civil plaintiffs only need to prove their case by a "preponderance of the evidence," which is a lower standard meaning more likely than not. A defendant can be acquitted in criminal court (or pleaded down to a lesser charge, as happened here) yet still be found liable in civil court for the same underlying conduct. Q: Why did the family sue the driver of the vehicle their loved one was riding in? Connecticut law allows passengers and their families to sue a negligent driver, even when the driver was operating the same vehicle. Dalessio was a passenger in Smith's BMW. The legal theory was straightforward: Smith owed a duty of reasonable care to his passenger, breached that duty by crossing the centerline into oncoming traffic, and caused her death. The fact that Dalessio was in his vehicle did not bar the wrongful death claim. Q: How can a jury award $15 million when economic damages were only $235,245? Wrongful death damages in Connecticut include both economic losses (medical bills, funeral expenses, lost future earnings) and noneconomic losses, which value the loss of life itself. The $15 million in noneconomic damages reflects the jury's valuation of Dalessio's life: the years she would have lived, the relationships and experiences taken from her family, and the gravity of the conduct that ended her life at age 20. Noneconomic damages routinely exceed economic damages in fatal injury cases, especially when the deceased was young.

Wrong way driver head-on crash on highway

Connecticut Jury Awards $15.2 Million in Wrongful Death of Waterbury Crash Passenger

04/20/26 April 20th, 2026 - Texas Wrongful Death

Texas Jury Returns $22.45 Million Railroad Crossing Verdict Against Kansas City Southern

A Wharton County, Texas jury on April 20, 2026 returned a $22.45 million verdict against Kansas City Southern Railway (now Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway) for the death of Marina Amaya and serious injuries to two others in a train-vehicle collision at a rural crossing. The Amaya family, represented by Trevor Courtney of Houston-based Arnold & Itkin LLP, alleged the railroad failed to install lights, bells, or crossing arms at a crossing plaintiffs characterized as one of the most dangerous on the railroad's North American system. After delivering the verdict, jurors asked the court to compel the railroad to complete safety upgrades at the crossing.Case at a Glance Verdict: $22,450,000 Case Type: Wrongful Death and Personal Injury Court: Wharton County, Texas Verdict Date: April 20, 2026 Plaintiffs: Jairo Amaya, Telma Morales, and the estate of Marina Amaya Defendant: Kansas City Southern Railway (now Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway) Plaintiff Attorney: Trevor Courtney, Arnold & Itkin LLPWhat Happened at the Railroad Crossing? According to the complaint, Jairo Amaya was driving a vehicle carrying Marina Amaya and Telma Morales when a Kansas City Southern train struck the car at a rural Wharton County crossing. Marina Amaya was killed in the collision. Telma Morales suffered serious injuries, and Jairo Amaya, 22 at the time of the crash, survived and later served as a plaintiff. Marina Amaya left behind two daughters, Ashley and Breidy. Ashley was four years old at the time of her mother's death, and Breidy, then a high school senior, began working to help care for her younger sister.Why Did the Jury Hold the Railroad Liable? The plaintiffs' liability theory focused on the railroad's failure to install active safety protections at the crossing. According to the Arnold & Itkin press release, the crossing had no lights, bells, or gates despite meeting criteria the plaintiffs argued should have triggered an upgrade. Plaintiffs alleged the railroad ranked the crossing among the most dangerous in its North American network. Notably, jurors did not stop at a damages award. After the verdict, the jury asked the trial court to order the railroad to complete safety upgrades at the crossing, a request that signals the panel viewed the absence of protections as an ongoing public hazard rather than an isolated omission.How Railroad-Crossing Liability Works in Texas Texas recognizes a railroad's duty to maintain its crossings and to install warning devices appropriate to the hazard at each crossing. Where a rural or "passive" crossing carries traffic patterns, sight-line obstructions, or train-speed profiles that make a collision reasonably foreseeable, courts allow juries to consider whether the railroad should have upgraded protections. Federal preemption under the Federal Railroad Safety Act limits some claims tied to federally funded warning devices, but plaintiffs frequently recover when the claim is framed around state-law duties the federal scheme does not displace.What Damages Did the Jury Award? The Arnold & Itkin announcement reports a total of $22.45 million without a public breakdown between Marina Amaya's wrongful-death damages, Morales's personal-injury damages, and any derivative claims by surviving family members. The release does not indicate whether any portion of the award is punitive. No appeal has been announced as of publication.Why This Verdict Matters for Plaintiff Lawyers For plaintiff attorneys working rail and transportation cases, the Wharton County verdict is a reminder that rural crossing cases remain viable in Texas state court when framed around documented risk rankings and the availability of affordable active protections. The jury's post-verdict request for safety upgrades also illustrates how plaintiff counsel can turn defect evidence into a durable public-safety narrative that juries carry into their damages thinking. Lawyers tracking Class I railroad litigation should watch whether Canadian Pacific Kansas City, the post-merger entity, installs protections at the crossing and whether other pending Amaya-style cases in Texas build on this outcome. Similar cases are aggregated in the personal injury verdict news hub. 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.Frequently Asked Questions Q: Is a railroad required to install lights, bells, and gates at every crossing? No. Federal and state rules distinguish between "active" crossings, which use lights and gates, and "passive" crossings, which rely on signs. The level of protection depends on traffic volume, train speed, sight distance, and historical incident data. Where a passive crossing meets upgrade criteria and a collision results, juries can find the railroad breached its duty of care. Q: Can families sue a railroad after a fatal crossing collision? Yes. Surviving family members in Texas can bring wrongful-death claims against a railroad for the death of a spouse, parent, or child, and the estate can bring a survival action for the decedent's pre-death damages. Injured passengers and drivers bring personal-injury claims in the same suit. Damages can include pain and suffering, loss of companionship, lost earnings, and future care. Families seeking local counsel can start with the Texas personal injury attorneys directory. Q: What does the jury's request for safety upgrades mean legally? A jury's written recommendation to install protections is not itself a court order. The trial judge may issue injunctive relief where the pleadings and proof support it, but absent a formal injunction the recommendation operates as a public signal rather than a binding directive. Plaintiffs' counsel frequently publicize such requests to pressure compliance. Additional context is available in the Texas personal injury public resources.

Texas Jury Returns $22.45 Million Railroad Crossing Verdict Against Kansas City Southern

04/08/26 April 8th, 2026 - Washington Wrongful Death

$130 Million Pierce County Wrongful Death Verdict After State and Daycare Ignored Abuse Warnings

A Pierce County jury has returned a $130,000,000 verdict in favor of the estate of Sarai Brooks, a 2-year-old girl who died on March 11, 2022, after suffering prolonged abuse. Jurors found that the Washington State Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) and Love and Laughter Learning Centers, Inc., a South Hill daycare, failed to act on repeated, visible warning signs that could have saved her life. The verdict, reported April 8, 2026 following a five-week trial, is believed to be the largest wrongful death award of its kind in Washington state history.Case at a Glance Verdict: $130,000,000 Case Type: Wrongful Death / Government Liability / Negligence Court: Pierce County Superior Court Case No.: 24-2-12689-4 Verdict Date: April 2026 Plaintiff: Estate of Sarai J. Brooks Defendants: State of Washington (DCYF); Love and Laughter Learning Centers, Inc. Plaintiff Attorney: Ray Dearie, Dearie Law Group Sarai's Death: March 11, 2022; cause of death: blunt force trauma to the head (ruled homicide)What Happened to Sarai Brooks Sarai Brooks had been removed from her home by Child Protective Services in April 2021 after Auburn police suspected her mother, Jharmaine Baker, of physically abusing her children. She was returned to the home approximately three months before her death, while state supervision remained in place. Sarai's abuser, Augustino Maile, was Baker's boyfriend. A court order prohibited him from having contact with the children. According to trial testimony and court records, DCYF returned Sarai to a home where Maile remained present, in violation of that order. The agency then failed to follow up on repeated warning signs, including missed daycare attendance and visible injuries documented on the child. Maile was later convicted of first-degree manslaughter in Sarai's death. Pierce County Superior Court Judge Angelica Williams sentenced him to just over 16 years in prison. Baker was sentenced to 6 years. The Pierce County Medical Examiner documented a history of injuries consistent with prolonged abuse.How the State and Daycare Failed Sarai The trial record established failures across two separate institutions. At the state level, DCYF workers placed Sarai back in a home with an active abuser, then did not follow through on monitoring obligations. Warning signs, including missed daycare appearances and observable injuries, went without documented follow-up. At the daycare level, staff at Love and Laughter Learning Centers observed visible injuries on Sarai, including a black eye and other concerning marks, according to court documents. Under Washington law, daycare workers are mandated reporters, legally required to report suspected child abuse to authorities. The jury found the daycare failed to fulfill that obligation. "The most painful part of this case is how profoundly preventable it was," said attorney Ray Dearie of Dearie Law Group. "All it took to save this child's life was for one person to do their job: a call to a social worker, a report from a mandated reporter, or any attempt at follow-up by the state. Any one of those actions could have saved Sarai's life."Why Did the Jury Return a $130 Million Pierce County Wrongful Death Verdict? Following a five-week trial, the jury apportioned liability between the State of Washington and the daycare. The specific breakdown between defendants was not reported in available sources. Plaintiff attorneys argued that systemic failures across both the child welfare system and the daycare directly contributed to Sarai's death. The evidence included a history of prior abuse, a documented court order that was ignored, visible injuries that went unreported, and a pattern of missed opportunities for intervention. “This verdict gives Sarai a voice," Dearie said. "The jury had the very difficult burden of hearing in graphic detail exactly what Sarai endured, and how many opportunities there were to save her.”What This Pierce County Wrongful Death Verdict Means for Child Welfare Accountability Washington abolished sovereign immunity in 1961 under RCW 4.92.090, making the state liable for damages arising from its wrongful conduct to the same extent as a private entity, with no cap on damages. That broad waiver is what made a $130 million verdict against a state agency legally possible here, and it distinguishes Washington from states that still limit or bar recovery against government defendants. For plaintiff attorneys handling Washington state wrongful death and child welfare negligence cases, the liability theory in this case is instructive: two separate defendants, a court order that was violated, mandatory reporting obligations that went unfulfilled, and a well-documented trail of missed interventions. The combination gave the jury a precise picture of how Sarai fell through institutional gaps that existed specifically to protect her. “Sarai did not have a voice while this was happening to her,” Dearie said. “This jury made sure she has one now and made clear that when institutions fail children like this, there must be accountability.”FAQ Q: Can you sue a state government agency for wrongful death in Washington? A: Yes. Washington abolished sovereign immunity in 1961 and has one of the broadest government liability waivers in the country. Under RCW 4.92.090, the state is liable for damages arising from its tortious conduct to the same extent as a private party, with no statutory cap on damages. Cases against state agencies still carry procedural requirements and can be complex, which makes experienced legal representation important from the outset. Q: What is a mandatory reporter, and what happens when they fail to report? A: In Washington state, certain professionals, including daycare workers, teachers, and healthcare providers, are legally required to report suspected child abuse or neglect to the appropriate authorities. Failure to make a mandatory report can expose an individual or organization to civil liability. The daycare's alleged failure to report visible injuries on Sarai was a central element of the plaintiff's case against Love and Laughter Learning Centers. Verdicts like this one show what juries are prepared to award when institutional failures are documented and the harm is irreversible. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured by the negligence of a government agency or institution, the trial record of your attorney matters. Find a plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict who has the results to back it up.

$130 Million Pierce County Wrongful Death Verdict After State and Daycare Ignored Abuse Warnings

04/04/26 April 4th, 2026 - Illinois Wrongful Death

$33 Million Settlement in Illinois Railroad Wrongful Death Case Involving Dangerous "Blind Shove" Maneuver

A joint legal team from St. Louis and Chicago secured a $33 million settlement for the family of a 29-year-old man killed in an Illinois railroad accident, resolving a wrongful death lawsuit that centered on a notoriously dangerous railroad industry practice known as a "blind shove." The settlement was reached in mid-February 2026. Per the terms of the agreement, the identities of the plaintiff and defendant, as well as the specific court, remain confidential.What Is a Blind Shove and Why Is It Dangerous? At the heart of this case was a railroad maneuver called a blind shove: a procedure in which a train reverses along a track while no personnel are stationed at the rear of the consist to watch for obstructions, workers, or bystanders in its path. The hazard is straightforward. When a train moves forward, the crew in the locomotive cab has a direct sightline to what lies ahead. When a train reverses in a blind shove, nobody is watching where it is going. Railroad safety regulations and industry standards have long addressed the risks of shoving movements. The Federal Railroad Administration requires that when a crew shoves cars toward a public crossing or into an area where the movement cannot be fully observed, a crew member must be positioned at the leading end of the movement to provide guidance. Without that requirement in place, workers and bystanders face catastrophic risk with little to no warning. According to the plaintiff's legal team, the railroad responsible for this incident failed to follow those protocols. A 29-year-old man was killed as a result.The Legal Team The case was handled by a collaboration between two firms with deep railroad litigation experience. Steve Groves and Caroline Alexander of Groves Powers in St. Louis led the plaintiff's team alongside Ben Crane and Erv Nevitt, partners at Coplan + Crane in Chicago. The firms' combined knowledge of railroad operations, federal safety regulations, and wrongful death litigation positioned them to secure the eight-figure result. "The settlement underscores the severe consequences of unsafe railroad operations and the significant risks posed by improper maneuvers," the legal team stated in a release announcing the outcome.Railroad Negligence Cases: High Stakes and Complex Facts Railroad wrongful death cases are among the most technically demanding in personal injury law. They involve a web of federal and state regulations, including the Federal Employers' Liability Act for railroad workers, the Federal Railroad Safety Act, and FRA operating rules governing how railroads must conduct operations and protect the people in their path. Proving liability in a blind shove case typically requires reconstructing the movement in detail: establishing that no ground guide was posted, that the crew had no visibility to the point of impact, and that the railroad's own operating rules required a flagman or ground guide for the movement in question. Expert witnesses in railroad operations are often critical to explaining precisely how a railroad's failure created the conditions for a fatal accident. The $33 million recovery reflects both the severity of the loss and the strength of the legal theory.What This Settlement Means for Railroad Accident Victims For families who lose a loved one in a railroad accident, cases like this one demonstrate that significant accountability is achievable even when the details of the proceeding remain sealed. Confidential settlements are common in railroad litigation, where defendants have strong institutional incentives to avoid public trial records that could inform future claims. The outcome also reflects the national reach of specialized plaintiff firms. The Groves Powers and Coplan + Crane teams brought together St. Louis and Chicago counsel to handle an Illinois case, a model of interstate collaboration that is increasingly common in large-stakes railroad and transportation litigation. If you are a plaintiff attorney who has secured a significant railroad verdict or settlement, your result deserves to be part of the public record. Major Verdict is built for exactly that purpose, a platform where plaintiff lawyers can document their trial outcomes and showcase their track record to prospective clients across the country. Join Major Verdict and start building your profile today.

$33 Million Settlement in Illinois Railroad Wrongful Death Case Involving Dangerous "Blind Shove" Maneuver

03/18/26 March 18th, 2026 - Ohio Wrongful Death

$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.

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

03/16/26 March 16th, 2026 - Utah Wrongful Death

$81 Million Utah Verdict in Child's Crosswalk Death Sets State Record

A Utah jury delivered an $81 million verdict on March 13, 2026, in the retrial of a wrongful death case brought by the family of Michael Madsen, an 11-year-old boy struck and killed by a truck in a Provo crosswalk in 2018. The award is believed to be the largest civil verdict in Utah history, surpassing the previous state record of $25 million. The verdict came at the end of a hard-fought retrial that began March 2. The first trial had ended in a defense verdict.What Happened to Michael Madsen In 2018, Michael Madsen was struck and killed by a truck while crossing in a marked crosswalk in Provo, Utah. The driver, Rusty Cope, was employed by Allied Building Products at the time of the collision. The Madsen family alleged that Allied hired a dangerously inexperienced driver with a checkered safety record, and that Cope sped into the crosswalk. The defense countered that Michael ran in front of the truck, pointing to video surveillance footage that showed the boy running as he entered the crosswalk.How the Jury Broke Down the $81 Million The jury's award was structured as follows: $33 million to each of Michael's parents $7.5 million to each of two friends who witnessed the collision The breadth of the award reflects the jury's recognition of harm extending beyond the immediate family, compensating two young witnesses who saw their friend killed.A Defense Offer of $1 Million, Then a $81 Million Verdict Just before closing arguments, the defense made a settlement offer of $1 million. The Madsen family declined. The jury's verdict triggered a flurry of negotiations during deliberations. According to plaintiff attorney Sean Claggett of Claggett & Sykes Trial Lawyers, the parties reached an undisclosed settlement that required the verdict to be finalized before the agreement could close. The settlement will preclude any appeals, bringing the eight-year legal fight to an end. "While the jury was deliberating there was a frenzy of negotiations," Claggett said, "and we were able to reach an agreement that required the deal to be finalized."The Trial Strategy That Turned the Case Around The outcome of the retrial hinged significantly on jury selection and trial strategy, according to Claggett. In the first trial, the defense verdict stood. In the retrial, Claggett waived all peremptory challenges and accepted the first ten qualified jurors. He credited that decision as central to the different result. "The biggest difference in the two cases was jury selection and having the jury really understand that the law in Utah requires them to judge the actions of our deceased client who was an 11-year-old boy," Claggett said. On the central factual dispute, Claggett took an unconventional approach: rather than disputing the surveillance footage showing Michael running into the crosswalk, he leaned into it. "We just owned this fact and used the defense expert to explain that it is normal for people to run into the crosswalk once the walk signal illuminates," he explained. Using the defense's own expert witness, Claggett argued that runners entering a crosswalk on a walk signal are acting lawfully, and that the burden falls on the driver, not the pedestrian. Claggett also drew on experience from a prior Nevada case he tried, where a jury assigned the child victim 27 percent fault in a similar crosswalk collision. He structured his Utah presentation specifically to prevent that outcome. Local counsel Blake Johnson of Johnson Livingston Personal Injury LLC supported Claggett at trial. The defense was represented by Jones Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., with attorney Ruth Shapiro delivering the closing argument for the defense.A Record Verdict in a State Not Known for Large Awards The $81 million figure is striking not only for its size but for where it happened. Utah is not typically associated with outsized jury verdicts. Claggett addressed that directly. The verdict surpasses the previous Utah civil verdict record of $25 million. Claggett's pre-trial data analysis, which he described as a rigorous process involving focus groups to vet cases before committing to trial, drove his decision to take the Madsen case to a Utah courtroom.Major Verdict Tracks Outcomes Like This One Results like the Madsen verdict represent exactly what Major Verdict was built to surface. Major Verdict is a national membership platform where plaintiff personal injury attorneys publicly display their trial verdicts and notable settlements, creating a searchable record of real case outcomes for both legal professionals and the general public. Plaintiff attorneys who want to put their trial results on the record can create a free profile on Major Verdict. Members with standout verdicts like this one can upgrade to a Featured Member profile for greater visibility. The public can browse attorney profiles and verdict histories to find lawyers with proven track records in cases similar to their own.

$81 Million Utah Verdict in Child's Crosswalk Death Sets State Record

03/07/26 March 7th, 2026 - Minnesota Wrongful Death

$17M Minnesota Wrongful Death Verdict Holds Killer Liable After Insanity Acquittal

A Ramsey County jury awarded $17 million to the family and trustee of Phanny Phay, a 28-year-old woman who was murdered by her then-boyfriend in 2017. The verdict came after her killer, Andre Duprey, had previously been found not guilty by reason of insanity in the criminal case walking free while Phay's family was left without answers, without closure, and without a forum to tell their story. That changed in civil court. The case, tried on an intentional tort wrongful death theory, presented a question that cut to the heart of how the civil justice system treats violence committed by someone with a documented mental illness: does a defendant's psychiatric state excuse the act when a jury is deciding civil liability? In Minnesota, at least in this case, the answer was no.A Brutal Crime, a Criminal Acquittal, and a Family Left Behind In 2017, Andre Duprey allegedly believed he was seeing a demon when he attacked Phanny Phay. He stabbed her 45 times and shot her in the neck twice with a shotgun. Phay was 28 years old. She had been working toward a career in medicine, aspiring to become a pediatrician. Duprey was charged with second-degree murder. At trial, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity and was committed to the Minnesota Forensic Mental Health Program in St. Peter. The Phay family never got to address the court. There was no criminal sentence, no victim impact statement, and no public accounting of what happened to their daughter and sister. "He was just shipped out to St. Peter," said Paul Appelbaum of the Appelbaum Law Firm, who represented the family in the civil case. "It is so important for people to be able to tell their story. They didn't get to."The Civil Case: Intentional Tort, Not Negligence Appelbaum, joined by Megan Curtis of Megan Curtis Law PLLC, filed a civil wrongful death suit on behalf of Phay's family and her trustee. The legal theory mattered enormously. Rather than alleging negligence, the attorneys pursued an intentional tort wrongful death claim. That distinction shaped everything about how the case was tried, argued, and ultimately decided. Under Minnesota civil law, Duprey's mental illness or diminished capacity was not a defense to intentional tort wrongful death liability. Judge Mark Ireland ruled that Duprey could testify about what he believed he witnessed the night of the killing, but the jury received an instruction making clear that mental illness was not an excuse for civil liability. "We wanted to be fair to the situation that happened and not try to mislead the jury as to the facts," Curtis explained, "but his NGRI in the criminal is not a defense in the civil wrongful death."Threading the Needle: Trial Strategy in an Unusual Case The case presented strategic challenges that Appelbaum and Curtis describe as genuinely tricky. Duprey had been released from the forensic mental health program by the time the civil trial was held. The Phay family only learned this when Duprey approached them at a restaurant during the case and expressed remorse. That dynamic followed the case into the courtroom. Duprey was present throughout the trial, behaving calmly. The attorneys had to account for how the jury might perceive that. Appelbaum's closing argument centered on a pointed legal principle: mistaken identity is not a defense to intentional tort wrongful death. Duprey believed Phay was a demon. He still chose to kill the person in front of him. "You still intended to kill the body that was in front of you," Curtis summarized. The jury absorbed that framework. After a few hours of deliberation, they returned a verdict of $17 million in favor of the family. With pre-judgment interest, the total recovery is expected to reach approximately $19 million, according to Curtis.What the Verdict Meant Beyond the Dollar Figure Appelbaum was candid that the size of the award, while significant, is not the measure of what this case delivered. Duprey, by all accounts, has no assets to satisfy the judgment. "My motivation was, we know this guy doesn't have any money," Appelbaum said. "It's more that we fell in love with the family." What the civil process gave the Phay family was something the criminal proceeding never could: a full hearing. Through discovery and subpoenas, the attorneys were able to give the family context about what actually happened the night Phay was killed. They got to tell their story in open court. They got a public verdict. "Not only being able to tell their story, not only being able to hold him accountable in some way, but being able to get a little bit of closure that was really worth it for the family," Curtis said. For Appelbaum, the case stands as one of the most meaningful of a nearly 35-year career.A Verdict That Signals Something Larger This outcome in Ramsey County illustrates a principle that plaintiff attorneys handle carefully but powerfully: the civil courts operate on their own standards of accountability. A not-guilty verdict in a criminal case ends the criminal matter. It does not foreclose a civil remedy, and it does not determine civil liability. For families who feel abandoned by the criminal justice system after a violent loss, civil wrongful death litigation can offer a path to accountability that the criminal process cannot or will not provide. Plaintiff attorneys who handle cases like this one are doing work that requires deep trial skill, careful evidentiary strategy, and the willingness to fight for outcomes that go beyond the settlement check. If you are a plaintiff attorney with trial results that deserve to be seen, Major Verdict is the only platform where you can publicly display your verdicts and settlements, for free. Let your record speak for itself. And if you or your family have suffered a wrongful death and want to find an attorney with a proven trial record, browse plaintiff lawyers on Major Verdict to find someone who has handled cases like yours.

$17M Minnesota Wrongful Death Verdict Holds Killer Liable After Insanity Acquittal

03/03/26 March 3rd, 2026 - Pennsylvania Wrongful Death

Jury Awards $1.5 Million in Philadelphia Jail Wrongful Death Verdict After Inmate Dies from Insulin Neglect

A federal jury has awarded more than $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $170,000 in punitive damages to the family of Louis Jung Jr., a 50-year-old South Philadelphia man who died of diabetic ketoacidosis while incarcerated at the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility in 2023. The Philadelphia jail wrongful death verdict, handed down on Monday, March 2, 2026, found that Jung's constitutional right to necessary medical care was violated. Jung's three sons filed the wrongful death and medical neglect lawsuit in federal court in 2024. The suit named the City of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Department of Prisons, and the company that provides healthcare at the city's jails as defendants.How Louis Jung Jr. Died in City Custody According to the lawsuit, Jung suffered from diabetes and required insulin to manage the condition. The suit alleged that jail staff failed to monitor his blood glucose levels, failed to administer insulin, and failed to send him to the hospital when his blood glucose became dangerously elevated. Jung died of diabetic ketoacidosis, a life-threatening complication that occurs when the body does not receive enough insulin. The condition is both preventable and treatable with proper medical attention. His death occurred at the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility in the Holmesburg section of Philadelphia. For more on cases like this, see Pennsylvania personal injury resources on Major Verdict.The Verdict and What the Jury Found Late on Monday, the jury returned a verdict awarding the Jung family more than $1.5 million in compensatory damages. Jurors also imposed $170,000 in punitive damages based on violations of Jung's constitutional right to receive necessary medical care while in custody. Rupalee Rashatwar, a staff attorney at the Abolitionist Law Center, a public interest law firm in Philadelphia that represented the family, said the verdict was about accountability. "For the Jung family, yesterday's verdict was about accountability, about ensuring that Mr. Jung's memory and the injustice that happened to him is remembered," Rashatwar said. A city spokesperson said officials were reviewing the verdict and had no additional comments.Philadelphia Jail Wrongful Death Verdict Follows Years of Systemic Problems The Jung verdict comes against a backdrop of ongoing scrutiny of conditions inside Philadelphia's jail system. In 2020, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the city and the prisons department by ten incarcerated individuals who alleged inhumane conditions and civil rights violations. That litigation led to a 2022 agreement that placed a federal monitor over the prisons department to address systemic issues, including a corrections officer vacancy rate exceeding 40%. In 2024, a judge found the city in contempt of court for violating the agreement and ordered it to pay $25 million into a fund earmarked for jail improvements. The Jung family's verdict adds to mounting legal and financial consequences for the city over conditions inside its correctional facilities. Browse the latest verdict news on Major Verdict for more cases like this one.What This Wrongful Death Verdict Means for Jail Medical Neglect Cases Wrongful death cases involving jail medical neglect carry a high burden in federal court. To recover punitive damages, the Jung family's attorneys had to show more than simple negligence. They had to demonstrate that the failures amounted to a violation of Jung's constitutional rights, specifically his right to adequate medical care while in government custody. The jury's decision to award both compensatory and punitive damages signals that they found the failures were serious enough to warrant punishment beyond simply compensating the family for their loss. For attorneys handling similar cases, the Jung verdict reinforces that juries are willing to hold municipalities and their healthcare contractors accountable when inmates die from preventable medical conditions. 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. If you or a loved one has been seriously injured, find a plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict who has the trial record to back it up.

Jury Awards $1.5 Million in Philadelphia Jail Wrongful Death Verdict After Inmate Dies from Insulin Neglect

02/24/26 February 24th, 2026 - Illinois Wrongful Death

$3 Million Indiana Wrongful Death Settlement Reached After Allegedly Impaired Truck Driver Killed Cyclist

A 32-year-old father riding his bicycle home from work was struck and killed at a marked intersection by a truck driver who was allegedly under the influence. The case resolved pre-suit for $3,000,000 the full amount of all available underlying and excess insurance coverage according to a press release from Crossen Law Firm in Carmel, Indiana.What Happened: A Fatal Bicycle-Truck Collision in Indiana According to Crossen Law Firm, the victim was cycling through a pedestrian crosswalk at a marked intersection. He was wearing high-visibility long pants and a reflective jacket to make himself visible to passing motorists. Despite those precautions, a truck driver failed to stop at the intersection and struck the cyclist. The driver was reportedly operating his employer's vehicle and was allegedly impaired at the time of the crash while on his way to work. The collision killed the 32-year-old father, who was unmarried and the sole financial provider for his young daughter.How Crossen Law Firm Secured the Indiana Wrongful Death Settlement Trevor Crossen and his team launched an immediate investigation into the crash, focusing on evidence preservation, the driver's alleged impairment, and employer liability. Because the driver was operating a company vehicle at the time of the collision, the case involved both the driver's individual negligence and potential employer responsibility. Crossen Law Firm pursued both the underlying insurance policy and an excess policy held by the employer. Through what the firm described as "strategic negotiation and aggressive advocacy," Crossen Law Firm resolved the matter without filing a lawsuit recovering the full $3 million in available insurance coverage. "This was a completely preventable tragedy," said Trevor Crossen. "Our client was doing everything right wearing high-visibility clothing and using the designated pedestrian crosswalk. No family should have to experience the loss of a loved one because someone chose to drive impaired."Why the Pre-Suit Resolution Matters Resolving a wrongful death case before filing suit is not common, particularly at full policy limits. Pre-suit resolutions spare grieving families from the emotional toll of prolonged litigation depositions, courtroom testimony, and years of uncertainty. In this case, the pre-suit settlement also meant faster financial relief for the victim's daughter. According to Crossen Law Firm, the $3 million recovery will provide long-term support for the child's education, living expenses, and future needs. For plaintiff attorneys evaluating similar cases, the result underscores the value of early and thorough investigation. Preserving evidence of impairment, establishing employer liability, and identifying all available insurance layers were critical steps that made a full-limits recovery possible without the cost and delay of litigation.Indiana Wrongful Death Claims Involving Impaired Drivers Crashes involving allegedly impaired drivers often carry both criminal and civil consequences. While a criminal case focuses on punishment, a wrongful death settlement like the one Crossen Law Firm secured here focuses on compensation for the surviving family. In Indiana, families pursuing a wrongful death claim do not need to wait for the outcome of any criminal proceedings. Civil cases operate on a lower burden of proof preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt which means a settlement or verdict can be reached even if criminal charges are reduced or dismissed. Evidence of impairment can also strengthen the civil case significantly. Toxicology results, field sobriety test records, and witness testimony about the driver's behavior before the crash all become critical tools for plaintiff attorneys building a wrongful death claim. In this case, Crossen Law Firm cited its early investigation into the driver's impairment as a key factor in reaching the full-limits Indiana wrongful death settlement without litigation.Indiana Wrongful Death Settlements: What Families Should Know Indiana's wrongful death statute allows the personal representative of a deceased person's estate to file a claim on behalf of dependents and next of kin. Damages can include lost income, loss of care and companionship, medical and funeral expenses, and the grief and suffering of surviving family members. When a fatality involves an impaired driver operating a commercial or employer-owned vehicle, multiple insurance policies may come into play including the driver's personal coverage, the employer's commercial auto policy, and any excess or umbrella policies. Identifying and pursuing every available layer of coverage is often the difference between a partial recovery and a full-limits result. Plaintiff attorneys who handle Indiana wrongful death cases can create a free profile on Major Verdict to publicly display results like this one making their track record visible to families searching for experienced representation.A Preventable Death, a Measure of Accountability No dollar amount replaces a father. But the $3 million settlement secured by Crossen Law Firm ensures that a young girl left without her sole provider will have meaningful financial support as she grows up. The case also sends a clear message about accountability. When an impaired driver kills a cyclist who was following every safety precaution and an employer's vehicle is involved the full weight of available insurance should be on the table. Major Verdict tracks significant plaintiff settlements and verdicts across all 50 states. Find a plaintiff attorney with a proven trial record in your state.

$3 Million Indiana Wrongful Death Settlement Reached After Allegedly Impaired Truck Driver Killed Cyclist

02/04/26 February 4th, 2026 - Washington Wrongful Death

King County Jury Awards $30.5M in CHOP Wrongful‑Death Case Against City of Seattle

A King County jury has awarded nearly $31 million to the family of 16‑year‑old Antonio Mays Jr., concluding the City of Seattle was negligent in how it managed the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP) zone. Mays was shot during the protest zone period, and the family’s wrongful‑death suit argued the area was effectively abandoned by police and that delays in emergency response contributed to his death. Jurors agreed, returning a verdict in the family’s favor. According to trial reporting, Mays was shot in the CHOP zone on June 29, 2023. No suspects have been identified or arrested. The suit claimed the zone’s security and access policies created dangerous conditions and slowed first‑responder access. The verdict places liability on the city for its handling of the zone and its response protocols during the incident. A spokesperson for the Seattle City Attorney’s Office said the city would assess its options going forward, signaling the possibility of post‑trial motions or appeal. For now, the jury’s decision stands as a major wrongful‑death verdict tied to municipal response and public‑safety management during the protests.

King County Jury Awards $30.5M in CHOP Wrongful‑Death Case Against City of Seattle

1 of 1 Pages - 10 Total Verdict News Posts Found

Search Verdict News

State Verdict News

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Verdict Case Types

Member Search

Latest Featured Members

View All Major Verdict Members

Search Members by State

Plaintiff trial attorneys. Join now for free!

ShowcaseYour Experience

Major Verdict gives you a free public profile to showcase your hard-earned trial verdicts and notable settlements. Let your results speak for themselves to potential clients and peers nationwide. You control what you share, when you edit, and how your public record is presented.

Why join

Join now