Skip to main content

PUBLIC PRE-LAUNCH STARTED. THE SITE TEMPORARILY CONTAINS SAMPLE PROFILES. JOIN FOR FREE NOW BEFORE WE START MARKETING TO THE PUBLIC ON 7/1/2026! PUBLIC PRE-LAUNCH STARTED. THE SITE TEMPORARILY CONTAINS SAMPLE PROFILES. JOIN FOR FREE NOW BEFORE WE START MARKETING TO THE PUBLIC ON 7/1/2026! PUBLIC PRE-LAUNCH STARTED. THE SITE TEMPORARILY CONTAINS SAMPLE PROFILES. JOIN FOR FREE NOW BEFORE WE START MARKETING TO THE PUBLIC ON 7/1/2026! PUBLIC PRE-LAUNCH STARTED. THE SITE TEMPORARILY CONTAINS SAMPLE PROFILES. JOIN FOR FREE NOW BEFORE WE START MARKETING TO THE PUBLIC ON 7/1/2026!

Major Verdict, LLC Logo
Home Page
About Major Verdict
Personal Injury Resources
Our Members
Latest PI Verdict News
Member Log In
Why Join Our Community
Join Major Verdict now
Membership FAQ's
Attorneys - Join Now for Free!

Personal Injury Verdict and Settlement News

Real verdicts. Real outcomes. Follow the trial results that plaintiff attorneys are talking about.

Workplace Death
Two men working in a boom lift bucket on side of building

Delaware Jury Awards $18.2 Million in Boom Lift Wrongful Death Verdict for Two Brothers Killed in Bethany Beach

A Delaware Superior Court jury has awarded $18,228,409 to the family of two brothers killed when a Genie Z135/70 articulated boom lift toppled in high winds during a 2020 cell tower job in Bethany Beach. Jovan Maldonado-Andino, 23, and Bryan Maldonado-Andino, 22, were roughly 120 feet in the air installing antennas on the Sussex Water Company tower on November 2, 2020, when wind gusts toppled the lift. Sitting in New Castle County before Judge Francis J. Jones Jr., the jury found general contractor Nexius Solutions Inc. and worker training academy Myndco Inc. liable after a seven-day trial. The family was represented by David L. Kwass and Michael J. Zettlemoyer of Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky.Case at a Glance Verdict: $18,228,409 Case Type: Workplace Death / Wrongful Death Court: Delaware Superior Court, New Castle County Verdict Date: April 27, 2026 Plaintiff: Vanessa Andino, administratrix of the estates of Jovan and Bryan Maldonado-Andino Defendants: Nexius Solutions Inc.; Myndco Inc. Plaintiff Attorneys: David L. Kwass and Michael J. Zettlemoyer, Saltz Mongeluzzi BendeskyWhat Happened on the Bethany Beach Cell Tower Job? The two brothers were employed by Velex Inc., a telecommunications subcontractor, and had been hired to install cellphone antennas atop the Sussex Water Company tower in Bethany Beach. They entered the platform of a Genie Z135/70 articulated boom lift and were elevated roughly 120 feet above the ground. Wind gusts that day were reportedly between 35 and 44 mph, well above the lift's manufacturer-rated maximum wind threshold of 28 mph. The lift toppled, became tangled in nearby powerlines as it fell, and the brothers were killed. Velex was later cited by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration for three serious violations connected to the incident.How Did the Jury Find Nexius and Myndco Liable for the Boom Lift Tipover? Plaintiffs' counsel argued at trial that Nexius Solutions, as the project's general contractor, had contractually agreed with Velex to oversee safety on the job. The general contractor also maintained its own internal policy prohibiting aerial lift use when winds exceeded 20 mph. Despite that policy, the brothers were sent up in reported conditions at nearly twice the company's stated threshold. The plaintiffs also argued that Myndco Inc., the training academy responsible for certifying the workers on aerial lift operations, failed to provide adequate operator training for the Genie Z135/70. The jury agreed, returning verdicts totaling $18,228,409 against both defendants. A third defendant, Sunbelt Rentals Inc., which had rented the lift to Velex, reached a confidential settlement with the family in March 2026 and was dismissed from the case before trial.Why This Boom Lift Verdict Matters for Plaintiff Attorneys The case is a current Delaware data point on workplace wrongful death damages. Both decedents were young, single, and earning entry-level subcontracted wages, a common defense lever for arguing depressed economic damages. The eight-figure award here suggests the New Castle County jury weighed the value of a life rather than a paycheck, and rejected attempts to allocate fault to the deceased workers themselves. The liability theory is also one plaintiff lawyers will recognize. General contractors who retain a written safety oversight role over subcontractors carry direct duty exposure, particularly where the GC's own policy is more restrictive than the equipment manufacturer's. Plaintiff attorneys handling Delaware verdict news and similar workplace death cases can use this verdict as a benchmark for both compensatory damages and the strength of the contractual safety duty argument.Who Represented the Plaintiffs? The family was represented by Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky partners David L. Kwass and Michael J. Zettlemoyer. Kwass is co-chair of the American Association for Justice's Crane and Aerial Lift Litigation Group and has tried similar tipover cases for nearly three decades. Defense counsel included Marc Perry and R. Joseph Hrubiec of Post & Schell, and Walter O'Brien and Krista Shevlin of Weber Gallagher. Major Verdict tracks significant plaintiff verdicts and settlements across all 50 states. Browse the latest results or find a Delaware plaintiff attorney with a proven trial record in workplace death and construction injury cases.Frequently Asked Questions Q: Why were the general contractor and the training company liable when the workers' direct employer was Velex? Under Delaware law, a general contractor who contractually retains responsibility for jobsite safety can be sued directly for negligence. That's a separate path from any claim against the workers' direct employer, which is typically shielded by the workers' compensation bar. The plaintiffs argued that Nexius Solutions had agreed to oversee safety operations and had its own wind-threshold policy, both of which created an independent duty owed to workers on the project. Myndco was a training academy, not the workers' employer, so the workers' compensation bar did not apply to it either. Q: What is the wind threshold for a Genie Z135/70 boom lift? The Genie Z135/70 articulated boom lift's maximum operating wind speed is 28 miles per hour, per the manufacturer's specifications referenced at trial. On the day of the incident, winds were reportedly gusting at 35 to 44 mph, well above that threshold. Nexius's own internal safety policy was stricter, prohibiting aerial lift use above 20 mph. Q: Is the verdict final, or can the defendants appeal? The Delaware Superior Court entered judgment against Nexius Solutions and Myndco for $18,228,409 on April 27, 2026. The defendants may file post-trial motions or appeal the judgment to the Delaware Supreme Court, but no appeal had been reported as of publication.

Toxic Tort
Asbestos floor tiles being removed

New York Jury Hits American Biltrite With $25 Million Asbestos Tile Verdict

A New York County jury awarded $25 million on April 29, 2026 to a mesothelioma victim who blamed his cancer on years of installing and removing American Biltrite's Amtico-brand asbestos floor tiles. The verdict, returned before the Honorable Judy J. Kim, included $20 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages against American Biltrite, Inc. Plaintiff partners Brittany A. Russell and Pierre Ratzki of Weitz & Luxenberg tried the case.Case at a Glance Verdict: $25,000,000 Case Type: Asbestos product liability (mesothelioma) Court: New York County, New York Verdict Date: April 29, 2026 Defendant: American Biltrite, Inc. Plaintiff Attorneys: Brittany A. Russell and Pierre Ratzki, Weitz & LuxenbergWhat Did the Jury Award? The jury split the $25 million into two distinct categories. Compensatory damages totaled $20 million, with the panel awarding $10 million for past pain and suffering and another $10 million for future pain and suffering. On top of that, the jury added $5 million in punitive damages, finding that American Biltrite acted with wanton, reckless, and malicious disregard for the safety of people exposed to its products. The split is unusual in its symmetry. Equal awards for past and future pain and suffering signal a jury that took the plaintiff's ongoing prognosis seriously, treating mesothelioma not as a closed injury but as a continuing one.How Was the Plaintiff Exposed? According to the firm, the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos through years of installing and removing Amtico-brand floor tiles manufactured by American Biltrite. Cutting, scraping, and removing asbestos-containing tiles releases respirable fibers, and floor tile installers have long been recognized as a high-risk occupational group in mesothelioma research. The plaintiff was later diagnosed with mesothelioma, the aggressive cancer of the lining of the lungs, abdomen, or heart that is almost exclusively linked to asbestos exposure. The latency period between exposure and diagnosis typically runs 20 to 50 years.Why Did the Jury Award Punitive Damages? The punitive damages turned on a single fact that Weitz & Luxenberg put squarely in front of the jury. "By 1981, American Biltrite had developed a patent to manufacture a non-asbestos tile using the same manufacturing process and equipment it used for asbestos tiles," plaintiff's counsel stated. That detail reframes the case. The argument is not just that American Biltrite sold a hazardous product, but that the company knew how to make a safer alternative on the same equipment and continued selling the asbestos version anyway. New York juries can award punitive damages when a defendant's conduct rises above ordinary negligence and shows conscious disregard for public safety, and the 1981 patent gave the jury a concrete date to anchor that finding.What This Verdict Means for Asbestos Litigation The $25 million award lands in the heart of the New York verdict news docket, where Weitz & Luxenberg has built a long track record. The firm secured a $117 million single-plaintiff verdict in 2025, also led by Brittany A. Russell, and a string of eight-figure mesothelioma awards before that. For floor tile cases specifically, the verdict reinforces a pattern. Tile installers, removers, and renovation workers continue to file claims decades after their exposures, and juries continue to credit the medical link between cumulative low-dose exposure and mesothelioma. Manufacturers facing this docket have to contend not only with the science but with their own historical paper trails, including patents, internal memos, and product specs that document what they knew and when. The verdict is subject to potential post-trial motions and appeal. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured, verdicts like this one show what juries are willing to award 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.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is mesothelioma, and why is it linked to asbestos floor tiles? Mesothelioma is a cancer of the thin tissue that lines the lungs, abdomen, or heart, and it is overwhelmingly caused by inhaling or ingesting asbestos fibers. Floor tiles manufactured with asbestos release respirable fibers when they are cut, sanded, scraped, or broken during installation and removal, putting installers, demolition workers, and renovators at elevated risk. Because the disease has a 20 to 50 year latency period, diagnoses today often trace back to exposures from the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s. Q: Why do asbestos juries award punitive damages? Punitive damages are reserved for conduct that goes beyond ordinary negligence and shows conscious disregard for safety. In asbestos cases, juries often hear evidence that manufacturers knew about the cancer risk for decades but continued selling asbestos products, sometimes even after a non-asbestos alternative was available on the same equipment. When that history is documented in patents, internal correspondence, or industry studies, juries have grounds to find the kind of reckless or malicious conduct that supports a punitive award. Q: Can someone still sue for asbestos exposure that happened decades ago? In most states, yes. Mesothelioma's long latency period is built into how the law treats these cases, and the statute of limitations typically begins to run from the date of diagnosis rather than the date of exposure. The specific deadline varies by state and depends on whether the claim is brought as a personal injury or a wrongful death action, so anyone diagnosed with mesothelioma should consult a plaintiff attorney experienced in asbestos litigation as soon as possible.

Product Liability
Medical devices being manufactured

$7.65 Million Kansas Product Liability Verdict in KU Med Heater-Cooler Death

A Wyandotte County jury delivered a $7.65 million Kansas product liability verdict on April 28, 2026, in favor of the family of Stephen Nolte, a 71-year-old Navy veteran and retired electrician who died from a Mycobacterium chimaera infection contracted during open-heart surgery at The University of Kansas Hospital. The jury allocated 88% of fault to The University of Kansas Hospital Authority, which had settled confidentially with the Nolte family shortly before trial, and 12% to medical device manufacturer LivaNova USA Inc., which contested liability through a 12-day trial. Plaintiff attorney Lynn R. Johnson of Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman tried the wrongful-death and product liability claims against LivaNova, securing a verdict that placed responsibility on both the hospital and the manufacturer of the contaminated heater-cooler device.Case at a Glance Verdict: $7,650,000 Case Type: Product Liability / Wrongful Death Court: Wyandotte County District Court, Kansas Verdict Date: April 28, 2026 Plaintiffs: Christine Nolte and Christopher Nolte (widow and son of Stephen Nolte) Defendants: The University of Kansas Hospital Authority (settled confidentially before trial); LivaNova USA Inc. Plaintiff Attorney: Lynn R. Johnson, Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman Apportionment: 88% to The University of Kansas Hospital Authority; 12% to LivaNovaWhat Happened to Stephen Nolte? Stephen Nolte, a Raytown resident, underwent an aortic valve replacement at The University of Kansas Hospital on March 6, 2019. The surgery itself was successful. Within months, however, Nolte developed disseminated Mycobacterium chimaera, a slow-growing bacterial infection traced to the heater-cooler device used to regulate his body temperature during the procedure. He battled the systemic infection for sixteen months before dying on July 8, 2020. His widow, Christine Nolte, and son, Christopher Nolte, filed suit in 2021 against The University of Kansas Hospital Authority and LivaNova USA Inc. The Nolte case is one of more than two dozen filed in Wyandotte County District Court arising from the same outbreak. Court filings indicate that 25 patients contracted M. chimaera at KU Med after open-heart procedures involving heater-cooler devices, with 11 of those patients dying.How Did the Plaintiff Build the Case? At trial, plaintiff counsel argued that two failures combined to kill Stephen Nolte: a hospital that stopped following the device manufacturer's cleaning protocol, and a device design that allowed contaminated vapor to escape into the operating room. Testimony established that on October 16, 2018, KU Med's chief perfusionist, Jamie Newberry, directed staff to stop disinfecting the heater-cooler units with bleach and to stop adding hydrogen peroxide to the water tanks. Both steps were described in LivaNova's instructions for use. Staff were directed to drain the tanks daily instead. By the time of Nolte's March 2019 surgery, the unit involved had not been disinfected in five months. Johnson argued to the jury that the patients who contracted M. chimaera "had one and only one thing in common." A LivaNova heater-cooler device was in the operating room for every one of them. He also presented testimony that the machines had been contaminated with the bacteria at LivaNova's manufacturing plant in Germany, and pointed to a design feature in which contaminated water in the unit's upper chamber could be aerosolized by exhaust fans and dispersed into the operating room.Why Did the Kansas Product Liability Verdict Split 88/12? After 12 days of trial and three and a half hours of deliberation, the Wyandotte County jury returned its allocation: 88% of fault to The University of Kansas Hospital Authority and 12% to LivaNova. The hospital had already settled with the Noltes confidentially, dismissed by Judge Courtney Mikesic on April 13, 2026, with no admission of liability. LivaNova's share of the $7.65 million in damages amounts to $918,000. The total damages broke down as follows: $3 million for noneconomic loss on the personal injury claim. On the wrongful-death claim, the jury awarded $650,000 in past economic loss, $550,000 in future economic loss, $2.7 million in past noneconomic loss, and $750,000 in future noneconomic loss. The 12% manufacturer apportionment is the headline of this Kansas product liability verdict for plaintiff attorneys watching from outside the state. Even when the immediate cause of harm was a downstream user deliberately deviating from documented safety procedures, the jury still found the manufacturer accountable for design and quality-control choices that made deviation more dangerous.The Broader M. chimaera Litigation The Nolte verdict is one of a small number of trial outcomes to emerge from a Wyandotte County litigation cluster involving more than two dozen patients and families. Roughly 17 of the cases against The University of Kansas Hospital Authority have resolved through confidential settlements. Several remain set for trial. The LivaNova/Sorin 3T heater-cooler device at the center of this litigation has been the subject of broader product liability litigation nationwide, including a $225 million resolution announced in 2019 covering many but not all heater-cooler claims. The Wyandotte County cases were not part of that earlier resolution and continue to move through Kansas state court.What This Kansas Product Liability Verdict Means for Plaintiff Attorneys For Kansas plaintiff lawyers, the Nolte verdict reinforces several practice points. Hospital infection cases involving documented protocol deviation present unusually clean liability narratives, particularly when manufacturer instructions have been disregarded by named hospital staff. Pairing a medical malpractice claim against the hospital with a product liability claim against the device manufacturer preserves recovery against the manufacturer even after a confidential hospital settlement. The 12% apportionment still produced a near-million-dollar judgment. The verdict also serves as a reference point for Kansas verdicts in hospital-acquired infection cases and adds another data point to the broader heater-cooler litigation now in its second decade. Major Verdict tracks significant plaintiff verdicts and settlements across all 50 states. Browse the latest results or find a plaintiff attorney with a proven trial record in your state.Frequently Asked Questions Q: How much was the Nolte verdict against KU Med and LivaNova? A Wyandotte County, Kansas, jury awarded $7.65 million in damages on April 28, 2026, in the Nolte family's lawsuit over a fatal Mycobacterium chimaera infection. The jury attributed 88% of fault to The University of Kansas Hospital Authority, which had settled with the family confidentially before trial, and 12% to LivaNova USA Inc., the manufacturer of the heater-cooler device used during Nolte's open-heart surgery. LivaNova's share of the damages amounts to $918,000. Q: What is M. chimaera and how is it linked to heater-cooler devices? Mycobacterium chimaera is a slow-growing nontuberculous mycobacterium that has been linked to a global outbreak of infections in open-heart surgery patients. Investigations identified contaminated heater-cooler devices, used to regulate patient body temperature during cardiopulmonary bypass, as the vehicle. The devices contain water tanks that can harbor the bacteria, and exhaust fans can aerosolize contaminated vapor into the sterile field of the operating room. Q: What was LivaNova's defense at trial? LivaNova denied liability and argued that the sole cause of the KU Med infection cluster was the hospital's October 2018 decision to stop disinfecting the heater-cooler devices according to the manufacturer's instructions. Defense counsel David Gross argued that when the cleaning instructions were followed, no infections occurred, and described the perfusionist's decision to halt disinfection as "a bacterial experiment." The jury still allocated 12% of fault to LivaNova.

Auto Accident
Rear-end car accident in middle of road

Florida Jury Awards $3.61 Million Verdict in Lake County Rear-End Collision

A Lake County, Florida jury awarded $3.61 million to a plaintiff injured in an August 2024 rear-end crash, returning the verdict on March 20, 2026 after Spetsas Buist Personal Injury & Car Accident Lawyers tried the case. Lead counsel Nick Spetsas argued the case in a venue widely viewed by Florida trial lawyers as conservative on civil damages, and the defense, according to the firm, made no pre-trial settlement offer. The collision left the defendant's vehicle totaled and produced no visible damage to the plaintiff's vehicle, a fact pattern defendants typically use to discount injury claims at trial.Case at a Glance Verdict: $3.61 million Case Type: Auto Accident (Rear-End Collision) Court: Lake County, Florida Verdict Date: March 20, 2026 Crash Date: August 29, 2024 Crash Location: County Road 44, Lake County, Florida Plaintiff Counsel: Nick Spetsas, Spetsas Buist (Orlando, FL)What Happened on County Road 44? According to the firm's public summary of the case, the plaintiff was stopped in traffic on County Road 44 when a trailing driver failed to brake in time and rear-ended the plaintiff's vehicle. The force of the impact totaled the defendant's car. The plaintiff's vehicle, by contrast, showed no visible exterior damage, an asymmetry the firm noted prominently when describing the case. The defense never extended a settlement offer before trial. That decision left a jury verdict as the only path to recovery.How Did the Plaintiff Win Despite "No Visible Damage"? In auto cases involving minimal visible vehicle damage, defendants almost always argue that small damage equals small injury. The strategy has a name in defense circles, often referred to as "Minor Impact Soft Tissue," and it relies on a juror's instinct that a car which "looks fine" could not have caused a serious injury. The Lake County verdict cuts against that intuition. The jury concluded the rear impact produced compensable harm and assigned a value of $3.61 million to the plaintiff's damages despite the absence of crumpled metal on the plaintiff's vehicle. That outcome typically requires careful medical proof, credible expert testimony, and a willing jury, all components a plaintiff team must build when photographs alone work against them.Why Does a $3.61 Million Lake County Verdict Matter? Lake County sits within the greater Orlando metropolitan area but is widely regarded by Florida trial lawyers as a conservative civil jurisdiction. Awards of this size, in this venue, on these facts, are uncommon. The result expands the data set plaintiff attorneys can point to when evaluating case value across Central Florida, particularly for clients whose vehicles emerged from a crash with little visible damage. It also adds to a growing body of recent Florida personal injury verdicts in which juries have rejected the assumption that the photo of a car dictates the value of the injury. For trial counsel preparing similar cases in the region, this verdict is a direct, named, dated reference point.What Does This Verdict Signal to Plaintiff Lawyers? Two practical takeaways stand out. First, the absence of a pre-trial offer did not prevent a recovery far above what a typical pre-trial demand would have settled for in a comparable rear-end case. Second, the verdict reinforces the importance of building injury cases on medical evidence rather than letting defense photographs frame the narrative. For attorneys handling cases involving spinal injuries, soft-tissue trauma, or other harms not easily captured in a crash photo, the Spetsas Buist result offers a usable benchmark. Browse more recent auto accident verdict news for additional case data points. Verdicts like this one show what plaintiff juries are willing to award when the evidence is solid and trial counsel is prepared to take a case the full distance. 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: Why do defendants emphasize minimal vehicle damage in injury cases? Defense teams know that jurors often equate visible damage with the severity of injury. By emphasizing a clean rear bumper, defense counsel hope to lead the jury toward the conclusion that no significant injury could have occurred. The approach is most common in rear-end and parking-lot collisions, where impact speeds are lower and exterior damage may be minor even when the human inside the vehicle is hurt. Q: What does "conservative jurisdiction" mean in a Florida verdict? Florida trial lawyers describe a jurisdiction as conservative when juries in that area historically return lower damages awards than juries in adjacent counties. Several Central Florida counties, including Lake County, are commonly placed in that category. A multi-million-dollar plaintiff verdict in a conservative venue is a meaningful data point for case valuation. Q: How is a verdict different from a settlement? A verdict is a decision returned by a jury after trial. A settlement is a negotiated agreement between the parties before, during, or sometimes after trial. The $3.61 million figure in this case is a verdict, meaning the jury, not the defense, set the value.

Wrongful Death
Wrong way driver head-on crash on highway

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.

Workplace Death
Large gas plant piping

$812 Million Texas Wrongful Death Verdict for Family of Worker Killed in Pecos Gas Plant Explosion

A Starr County, Texas jury has returned an $812 million wrongful death verdict in favor of the wife and two daughters of Reinaldo Garcia Pena, a worker killed in a 2023 explosion at the Pecos Liquids Handling Facility. The verdict against facility owner Upton Assets, LLC breaks down as $203 million in compensatory damages and $609 million in punitive damages. The jury assigned 100 percent of the fault to Upton Assets, zero percent to the deceased worker, and unanimously found the company's conduct rose to the level of gross negligence. The award is part of a combined $1.6 billion total verdict covering the families of two workers killed in the same blast. Case at a Glance Verdict: $812,000,000 ($203M compensatory + $609M punitive) Case Type: Wrongful Death / Workplace Explosion Court: 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas Verdict Date: April 2026 Plaintiff: The widow and two daughters of Reinaldo Garcia Pena Defendant: Upton Assets, LLC Plaintiff Attorneys: Rob Ammons and Herbie Montalvo (The Ammons Law Firm); Omar Escobar Jr. (Escobar Law Firm); Jesus A. Zambrano and Edgar E. Garcia (Zambrano Law Firm)What Happened at the Pecos Liquids Handling Facility? On October 7, 2023, an explosion ripped through the Pecos Liquids Handling Facility in Pecos, Texas, killing two workers from the Rio Grande Valley: Reinaldo Garcia Pena and Angel Alaffa. According to the Ammons Law Firm, the men had traveled more than 500 miles for the job and had been on site for weeks of unpaid labor before the blast. The plaintiffs alleged that Upton Assets sent the workers to weld on a tank still containing flammable hydrocarbons, armed only with a gas monitor that could not detect the vapors that ultimately ignited.Why Did the Jury Award $609 Million in Punitive Damages? Punitive damages of that scale signal a finding that the conduct was not merely careless but reckless. The trial centered on the company's failure to follow Process Safety Management (PSM) protocols, a federally required safety framework for facilities handling hazardous chemicals. According to court evidence summarized by plaintiff counsel, Upton Assets: Had no documented safety procedures and issued no hot work permits Employed a facility manager without PSM training or qualifications Provided the workers with no safety manual, orientation, or training Allowed liquid hydrocarbons to flood work areas without atmospheric testing Left tank cleaning incomplete while giving workers false safety assurances By the end of cross-examination, Upton Assets' own retained expert was forced to concede that what occurred at the facility was not an accident but, in his words, a "systemic failure of safety."How Were the Compensatory Damages Distributed? The jury awarded the $203 million in compensatory damages to the Garcia family as follows: $101.5 million to Reinaldo Garcia Pena's widow $50.75 million to one daughter $50.75 million to the other daughter The $609 million in punitive damages was apportioned across the same beneficiaries. A separate award of similar scale was returned for the family of Angel Alaffa, bringing the combined total verdict in the case to roughly $1.6 billion.What This Verdict Signals for Texas Workplace Death Cases The result is one of the largest workplace wrongful death verdicts in U.S. history and a significant data point for plaintiff attorneys handling Texas industrial accident cases. Starr County jurors heard a two-week trial focused on documentary gaps, training failures, and cross-examination of corporate witnesses, a pattern that has produced outsized awards in oilfield and chemical plant cases across the state. Lead counsel Jesus (Jesse) A. Zambrano framed the verdict in worker dignity terms, saying companies "must treat workers with dignity and respect."Conclusion Verdicts like this one show what Texas juries are willing to award when plaintiff counsel can document a complete breakdown of safety culture and walk a defense expert into the admission. Major Verdict tracks significant plaintiff verdicts and settlements across all 50 states. Browse the latest results or find a plaintiff attorney with a proven trial record in Texas.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is gross negligence under Texas law? Gross negligence in Texas requires evidence that the defendant's conduct involved an extreme degree of risk and that the defendant had actual, subjective awareness of that risk but proceeded with conscious indifference. A finding of gross negligence is what unlocks punitive damages in Texas wrongful death cases. Q: Are punitive damages capped in Texas wrongful death cases? Texas generally caps punitive damages at the greater of $200,000 or two times economic damages plus an amount equal to non-economic damages (capped at $750,000). However, the cap does not apply in cases involving certain felony-level conduct. Whether any reduction applies in this matter would be addressed post-verdict. Q: What is Process Safety Management (PSM)? Process Safety Management is an OSHA-mandated framework (29 CFR 1910.119) that requires facilities handling highly hazardous chemicals to maintain written procedures, employee training, hot work permits, mechanical integrity programs, and incident investigations. Plaintiffs argued Upton Assets had implemented none of these required elements at the Pecos facility.

Workplace Accident
Forklift in large wharehouse

$5.5 Million Wisconsin Verdict Against Menards in Eau Claire Forklift Injury Case

An Eau Claire County, Wisconsin jury has returned a $5.5 million personal injury verdict against retailer Menard, Inc. after a temporary forklift operator at the company's Eau Claire distribution facility dropped metal pallets on the head of a 46-year-old truck driver. The jury assigned 100 percent of the fault to Menards and its forklift operator and zero percent to the plaintiff. The award is reportedly the largest forklift injury verdict against Menards in Wisconsin history. Attorney Chris MacGillis of the MacGillis Law Group, LLC tried the case under docket number 22-CV-0521. Case at a Glance Verdict: $5,500,000 Case Type: Workplace Forklift Injury / Premises Liability Court: Eau Claire County Circuit Court, Wisconsin (Case No. 22-CV-0521) Verdict Date: April 24, 2026 Plaintiff: 46-year-old truck driver (name not publicly released) Defendant: Menard, Inc. Plaintiff Attorney: Chris MacGillis, MacGillis Law Group, LLCWhat Happened at the Menards Distribution Center? The plaintiff, a truck driver delivering to the Menards Eau Claire distribution facility, was struck in the head by metal pallets being moved by a temporary worker operating a forklift at the site. The blow caused a severe laceration that required emergency surgery and left the plaintiff with permanent injuries, according to local Wisconsin news coverage and the MacGillis Law Group. According to evidence presented at trial, multiple Menards employees acknowledged that the forklift operator had violated a known safety rule when the pallets were dropped.Why Did the Jury Find 100 Percent Fault Against Menards? The plaintiff's case centered on a documented breakdown in how Menards onboarded and supervised the temporary forklift operator. Trial evidence showed that Menards: Did not properly certify, train, or supervise the temporary worker before authorizing him to operate a forklift Operated in violation of OSHA powered industrial truck standards, which require documented operator training and evaluation before solo operation Had been on notice of prior, similar forklift incidents at other Menards distribution centers and failed to address the underlying safety gaps Attempted at trial to shift blame to the temp staffing agency and to the injured truck driver himself The jury rejected the comparative-fault theory and assigned all liability to Menards and its operator.What Were the Plaintiff's Injuries? The plaintiff sustained a severe head laceration that required emergency surgical repair. According to the firm, he was left with permanent injuries as a result of the incident, which formed the basis of the substantial compensatory award.What This Verdict Signals for Wisconsin Workplace Injury Cases For plaintiff attorneys handling Wisconsin workplace accident cases, the result is a useful data point. The case demonstrates a jury's willingness to hold a large retailer fully responsible when a temporary worker is put on dangerous equipment without OSHA-compliant certification and supervision, and when prior similar incidents can be put in front of the jury as evidence of a known, unaddressed pattern. In a statement released after the verdict, MacGillis said: "These are the types of verdicts that lead to change."Conclusion Verdicts of this size against a regional retailer the size of Menards are relatively rare, particularly on a 100-percent-liability finding with no comparative fault. Major Verdict tracks significant plaintiff verdicts and settlements across all 50 states. Browse the latest results or find a plaintiff attorney with a proven trial record in Wisconsin.Frequently Asked Questions Q: Are companies liable for injuries caused by temporary or staffing-agency workers? Yes, when the host employer controls the work, training, and equipment. Under both common-law agency principles and OSHA's "host employer" guidance, a company that puts a temp worker on machinery without proper certification and supervision can be held directly liable for injuries that result, even if the worker is technically employed by a staffing agency. Q: What does OSHA require for forklift operator training? OSHA's powered industrial truck standard (29 CFR 1910.178(l)) requires that every forklift operator receive formal instruction, hands-on training, and a documented performance evaluation before operating a forklift independently. Refresher training is required after near-misses, observed unsafe operation, or assignment to a different type of equipment. Q: Can prior similar incidents be used as evidence in a Wisconsin personal injury case? In some circumstances, yes. Evidence of prior similar incidents may be admissible to show notice of a hazard and the foreseeability of harm, particularly where the plaintiff alleges the defendant failed to correct a known unsafe condition. Admissibility is governed by Wisconsin's evidence rules and is decided case-by-case by the trial court.

Commercial Trucking Crash
Semi trucks lined up in parking lot

Florida $2 Million Tractor-Trailer Verdict, 50/50 Fault Split in U-Turn Crash

An Alachua County, Florida jury awarded Charles Thomas $2 million after a tractor-trailer making a U-turn on US Highway 301 collided with his passenger car, then reduced the recovery by half after apportioning equal fault to Thomas and the trailer's driver. The verdict in Thomas v. C&S Wholesale Services came after a nine-day trial in the 8th Judicial Circuit presided over by Judge Gloria Walker, and it included $1.3 million in medical expenses and $700,000 in non-economic damages. Thomas was represented by Clancy Boylan of Morgan & Morgan, and defendants C&S Wholesale Services and tractor-trailer driver Gregory Streater were represented by Jerry Hamilton of Hamilton Miller & Birthisel. Because the jury found Thomas 50 percent responsible, his net recovery under Florida's comparative fault rules is approximately $1 million.Case at a Glance Verdict: $2,000,000 gross, approximately $1,000,000 net after comparative fault Medical Expenses: $1,300,000 Non-Economic Damages: $700,000 Case Type: Trucking Accident (Tractor-Trailer) Court: 8th Judicial Circuit, Alachua County, Florida Case No.: 2024-CA-004343 Judge: Gloria Walker Plaintiff: Charles Thomas Defendants: C&S Wholesale Services; Gregory Streater (driver) Plaintiff Attorney: Clancy Boylan, Morgan & Morgan Defense Attorney: Jerry Hamilton, Hamilton Miller & Birthisel Trial Length: 9 daysHow the Crash Happened on US-301 Streater was hauling a C&S Wholesale Services tractor-trailer on US Highway 301 in 2023 when he missed an exit. Instead of continuing to the next one, he attempted a U-turn across the highway. Thomas's passenger car struck the trailer during the maneuver. Thomas suffered multiple broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. Medical records introduced at trial supported the $1.3 million in proven medical expenses.Why the Jury Split Fault 50/50 Both sides argued the other driver could have avoided the collision. For the plaintiff, Boylan framed the U-turn as the defining act of negligence. "That's what makes this decision so unreasonable," Boylan told the jury. "That's what negligence is, folks: doing something that is unreasonable." The defense pushed the opposite theory, focusing on Thomas's opportunity to react as the trailer swung across his lane. "If you have time to see it, you have time to avoid it," Hamilton argued. "End of story." After deliberation, the jury found each driver 50 percent responsible.What the $2 Million Verdict Covers, and Why It Was Cut in Half The $2 million total breaks down into $1.3 million in medical expenses and $700,000 in non-economic damages for pain, suffering, and the lasting effects of the traumatic brain injury. Florida's comparative fault rules reduce a plaintiff's recovery by the percentage of fault the jury assigns to the plaintiff. With Thomas found 50 percent at fault, his award dropped from $2 million gross to roughly $1 million net. One procedural wrinkle shaped the final number. When the jury first returned its verdict, it awarded medical expenses but declined non-economic damages. After both sides raised an inconsistency objection, Judge Walker sent the case back for reconsideration. The jury then added $700,000 in non-economic damages, which reflected the severity of Thomas's injuries.Why This Verdict Matters for Florida Trucking Cases Cases involving commercial tractor-trailers and evasive maneuvers on open highways often turn on which driver had the last clear chance to avoid the collision. A 50/50 split is common when jurors see negligence on both sides. For plaintiff lawyers handling Florida trucking accidents, the result is a practical reminder that even well-tried cases with serious injuries and strong medical evidence can see recoveries cut in half when comparative fault lands at the midpoint. For background, see our Florida personal injury public resources.Takeaway The $2 million gross verdict in Thomas v. C&S Wholesale Services is a reminder that fault-splitting in tractor-trailer cases can reshape a plaintiff's recovery even when damages are clearly proven. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured in a trucking crash, verdicts like this one show what juries are willing to award when the evidence is strong and counsel is prepared for a full trial. Find a Florida plaintiff attorney on Major Verdict with the trial record to back it up, and browse more plaintiff verdict news for similar outcomes across the state.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is comparative fault and how did it affect this verdict? Comparative fault is a legal rule that reduces a plaintiff's recovery by the percentage of fault the jury assigns to the plaintiff. Here, the jury found Charles Thomas 50 percent responsible, so his gross award of $2 million was reduced by half. His actual recovery is approximately $1 million. Q: Why did the judge send the jury back for more deliberation? The initial verdict awarded medical expenses but declined non-economic damages, which the attorneys argued was inconsistent with a finding of serious injury. Judge Gloria Walker returned the case for reconsideration, and the jury then added $700,000 in non-economic damages tied to the plaintiff's traumatic brain injury and other harm. Q: Can plaintiffs in Florida still recover when found partly at fault? When a plaintiff's share of fault is 50 percent or less, Florida law reduces the award by that percentage but still permits recovery. Plaintiffs found more than 50 percent at fault under current Florida law recover nothing, so verdicts near the midpoint often turn on fine-grained questions of comparative responsibility.

Medical Malpractice
Spinal surgery being performed in operating room

Maine Jury Awards $6.5 Million in Medical Malpractice Verdict Over Delayed Spinal Surgery

A Penobscot County jury awarded Travis Getchell $6.5 million on April 17, 2026, after finding Northern Light Eastern Maine Medical Center and neurosurgeon Dr. Kutluay Uluc negligent in the care that left the 41-year-old Eddington man partially paralyzed. Getchell arrived at the emergency room on August 30, 2021, with a herniated disc compressing his spinal nerves, a condition requiring emergency surgery to prevent permanent damage. Surgery was not performed until roughly 24 hours later. He now walks short distances only with leg braces and has lost bladder and bowel control. The verdict is reported as one of the highest ever returned in Penobscot County.Case at a Glance Verdict: $6.5 million Case Type: Medical Malpractice Court: Penobscot County, Maine Verdict Date: April 17, 2026 Plaintiff: Travis Getchell Defendants: Northern Light Eastern Maine Medical Center; Dr. Kutluay Uluc Plaintiff Attorneys: Meryl Poulin and Benjamin GideonWhat Happened at Northern Light Eastern Maine Medical Center? Getchell presented to the emergency room at Northern Light Eastern Maine Medical Center on August 30, 2021, reporting severe back symptoms. An MRI was ordered to evaluate his spine. According to evidence presented at trial, nearly four hours passed before a clinician reviewed the imaging results. The MRI showed a herniated disc pressing on nerves at the base of the spinal canal, a pattern consistent with cauda equina syndrome. Emergency neurosurgery is the accepted treatment when this condition is identified, with the surgical window measured in hours rather than days. Getchell's surgery was ultimately performed on August 31, 2021, about 24 hours after he first arrived in the emergency department.What Is Cauda Equina Syndrome and Why Does Timing Matter? Cauda equina syndrome occurs when the bundle of nerves at the lower end of the spinal cord is compressed, most often by a herniated disc. The condition can cause sudden, permanent loss of bladder and bowel function, sexual function, and lower-limb strength if pressure on the nerves is not promptly relieved. Medical guidance generally treats cauda equina syndrome as a surgical emergency. The longer the nerves remain compressed, the greater the risk that damage becomes permanent even after the disc material is removed. Those facts were central to the plaintiff's case. Getchell's attorneys argued that the delay between his arrival and his surgery cost him the chance to recover full function.Why Did the Jury Side with the Plaintiff? After roughly five days of testimony, the Penobscot County jury returned a verdict against Northern Light Health, Northern Light Eastern Maine Medical Center, and Dr. Kutluay Uluc. The jury found the defendants negligent and awarded Getchell $6.5 million in damages. The plaintiff was represented by Meryl Poulin and Benjamin Gideon. Their case centered on the nearly four-hour gap between the MRI and clinician review, and on the overall timeline that resulted in surgery occurring roughly a day after Getchell first sought care. In a statement following the verdict, Northern Light said, "We are disappointed with the jury's verdict, we respect it."What Does This Verdict Mean for Maine Medical Malpractice Cases? The award is reported as one of the highest medical malpractice verdicts ever returned in Penobscot County. Its size reflects the severity of the permanent injuries Getchell described to the jury: partial paralysis, loss of bladder and bowel control, and a life in which walking requires leg braces and is limited to short distances. For plaintiff lawyers in Maine, the case illustrates how focused timeline evidence, the time between arrival, imaging, review, and treatment, can drive verdicts in delayed-diagnosis claims. When medical literature treats a condition as a surgical emergency, juries are often willing to scrutinize every hour that passes before care is delivered. For patients and families, the verdict is a reminder that hospital systems can be held accountable when emergency care does not match the urgency of the diagnosis. Similar cases are aggregated in the personal injury verdict news hub, and attorneys in the state are listed in the Maine personal injury attorneys directory.Bottom Line The Getchell verdict shows what a Maine jury was willing to do when a plaintiff could document, hour by hour, how a hospital's response fell short of the urgency the diagnosis demanded. 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 is cauda equina syndrome? Cauda equina syndrome is a condition in which the bundle of nerves at the lower end of the spinal cord is compressed, often by a herniated disc. Symptoms can include severe lower-back pain, leg weakness, numbness in the saddle area, and loss of bladder or bowel control. It is generally considered a surgical emergency. Q: How quickly should hospitals treat suspected cauda equina syndrome? Medical guidance treats suspected cauda equina syndrome as a surgical emergency, with imaging and neurosurgical evaluation expected to occur without delay. Prolonged nerve compression increases the risk of permanent paralysis and loss of bladder and bowel function, which is why timeline evidence is often central in these lawsuits. Q: Can patients in Maine sue a hospital for a delayed diagnosis? Yes. Maine allows medical malpractice claims against hospitals and individual providers when a delay in diagnosis or treatment falls below the accepted standard of care and causes injury. Claims must generally be filed within the state's statute of limitations and, in many cases, presented to a pre-litigation screening panel before trial. Additional context is available in the Maine personal injury public resources.

Medical Malpractice
C-section birth in hospital operating room

Cook County Jury Awards $7.25 Million in Medical Malpractice Verdict Following Emergency Hysterectomy

A Cook County jury on April 20, 2026 awarded Haylie Carlson and her husband Philip Griffin $7.25 million in a medical malpractice case arising from complications during an unplanned cesarean section. The award includes $6.75 million to Carlson and $500,000 to Griffin. After a two-week trial before Judge Bridget Mitchell, the jury of seven men and five women deliberated for about six hours before returning its verdict. Carlson was represented by Sarah F. King, David F. Jasinski, and Devin J. Piper of Clifford Law Offices. The award is reported as a record Cook County verdict in a hysterectomy case, topping a $5 million verdict from 2009.Case at a Glance Verdict: $7.25 million ($6.75M to Haylie Carlson; $500,000 to Philip Griffin) Case Type: Medical Malpractice Court: Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (Case No. 2021 L 010206) Verdict Date: April 20, 2026 Plaintiffs: Haylie Carlson and Philip Griffin Defendants: Monique Sutherland, M.D.; Joanna Izewski, M.D.; Gian Diaz Rodriguez, M.D.; Anya Raskin, M.D.; Brian Huntington, M.D.; Iesha Waters, R.N. Plaintiff Attorneys: Sarah F. King, David F. Jasinski, and Devin J. Piper (Clifford Law Offices) Defense Counsel: Sherri Arrigo, Erin S. Davis, and Allie Ewert (Donohue Brown Smyth) Judge: Hon. Bridget Mitchell Trial / Deliberation: Two weeks / six hoursWhat Happened During the C-Section? According to Clifford Law Offices, Carlson underwent an unplanned cesarean delivery. During the surgery, a resident physician and supervising fellow damaged her uterine vessels. That vascular injury was not recognized in the operating room. A shift change followed, and the original team handed off care before the bleeding was identified or controlled. In the hours after delivery, Carlson began showing signs of postpartum hemorrhage. Her bedside nurse did not alert the attending physician, which delayed both diagnosis and the blood transfusion that should have followed. By the time surgeons returned to the operating room, the extent of the injuries forced them to perform a hysterectomy, remove her ovaries and cervix, reimplant a ureter, and repair her bladder. Carlson permanently lost the ability to have biological children.Why Did the Jury Find the Medical Team Liable? The plaintiff's theory centered on two failures stacked on top of each other. First, the surgical team injured uterine vessels during the C-section and did not recognize the injury before handing off care. Second, the postoperative team failed to act on hemorrhage warning signs in time to prevent irreversible harm. Central to that theory was the hospital's own protocol. Plaintiffs alleged the defendants failed to follow the facility's established obstetric hemorrhage guidelines and its massive transfusion protocol, two internal safety standards specifically written to catch and treat the exact emergency Carlson suffered. After the verdict, lead attorney Sarah F. King said, "This case was very complex, but the jury listened intently to all the facts and came to a just result for this family." King also noted that the case was tried to verdict with no settlement offer on the table.What Is a Massive Transfusion Protocol and Why Did It Matter Here? A massive transfusion protocol, or MTP, is a pre-written hospital procedure that activates when a patient is losing blood faster than conventional transfusions can replace it. Once triggered, it coordinates delivery of packed red blood cells, plasma, and platelets in predetermined ratios, along with escalating involvement of surgeons, anesthesiologists, and blood-bank staff. Obstetric hemorrhage guidelines serve a similar function for postpartum patients. They list the clinical signs that should prompt escalation, including vital-sign changes, blood-loss benchmarks, and drops in hematocrit or hemoglobin. Plaintiffs argued those trip-wires were activated in Carlson's case and ignored. When a jury hears that a hospital wrote the rulebook for its own staff and the staff did not follow it, the causation question becomes very hard for the defense to win. That dynamic is reflected in the size of this verdict.Why This Verdict Is Significant in Cook County The $7.25 million award is reported as a record Cook County result in a medical-malpractice hysterectomy case, topping a $5 million verdict from 2009. Illinois has no statutory cap on non-economic medical malpractice damages following the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, which means jury awards like this one are not subject to automatic reduction. For plaintiff attorneys handling obstetric injury claims, the verdict shows the power of protocol-based liability. When the defense cannot explain why clinicians did not follow the hospital's own written emergency response, juries tend to find for the plaintiff, and tend to do so generously. A catalog of similar outcomes is maintained in the personal injury verdict news hub.Bottom Line The Carlson verdict shows what a Cook County jury does when the facts point to a preventable obstetric emergency that unfolded exactly as the hospital's own protocols were written to prevent. 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 is postpartum hemorrhage? Postpartum hemorrhage is abnormal bleeding after childbirth, typically defined as blood loss of 1,000 mL or more in the first 24 hours. It is one of the leading causes of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States. Most hospitals have written escalation protocols that are supposed to be triggered by specific vital-sign and blood-loss thresholds. Q: Can a patient sue a hospital in Illinois for a failed C-section? Yes. Illinois recognizes medical malpractice claims against physicians, residents, fellows, nurses, and hospitals when care falls below the accepted standard and causes injury. Cases involving residents and supervising attendings often turn on whether the hospital's supervision, handoff, and escalation rules were followed. Illinois requires plaintiffs to file a certificate of merit from a qualified health professional at the outset of the case. Q: Does Illinois cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases? No. The Illinois Supreme Court struck down the state's cap on non-economic medical-malpractice damages in Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital (2010). Juries may award whatever amount the evidence supports for pain, suffering, loss of a normal life, and loss of consortium. More context is available in the Illinois personal injury public resources.

Wrongful Death
Railroad crossing sign and lights

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.

Product Liability
Interior of SUV showing center console and shifter

Minnesota Jury Delivers $18 Million Jeep Grand Cherokee Rollaway Verdict After Leg Amputation

A Dakota County, Minnesota jury on April 20, 2026 returned an $18 million verdict against FCA US LLC, the parent of Chrysler and Jeep, in a Jeep Grand Cherokee rollaway case that cost plaintiff Jeffrey Wu his leg. The jury in the First District Court of Minnesota found the vehicle's monostable gear shifter was defective and held the manufacturer responsible for the harm to Wu and his wife, Ting Yang. Plaintiff attorneys Kyle Farrar and Wes Ball of Kaster Lynch Farrar & Ball, along with Genevieve Zimmerman of Meshbesher & Spence, represented the family. The case is docketed as 19HA-CV-23-981.Case at a Glance Verdict: $18,000,000 Case Type: Product Liability (Automotive Defect) Court: First District Court of Minnesota, Dakota County Verdict Date: April 20, 2026 Plaintiffs: Jeffrey Wu and Ting Yang Defendant: FCA US LLC (Chrysler) Plaintiff Attorneys: Kyle Farrar and Wes Ball (Kaster Lynch Farrar & Ball, LLP); Genevieve Zimmerman (Meshbesher & Spence) Vehicle: 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee Case Number: 19HA-CV-23-981What Happened in the Jeep Grand Cherokee Rollaway Incident? In March 2022, Wu exited his 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee after believing he had shifted it into park. The vehicle's monostable gear shifter, a stick-style selector that returns to a center position regardless of the gear selected, did not reflect the actual gear state. The Jeep rolled backward while Wu was outside the vehicle and struck him with enough force to require amputation of his left leg. His wife Ting Yang joined as a plaintiff and sought damages for loss of services and companionship.Why Did the Jury Find the Shifter Defective? The plaintiffs' case centered on a design Chrysler used in the 2014 and 2015 Grand Cherokee and several other FCA models. The monostable shifter presents the same physical position for park, reverse, and drive, with only a small readout to confirm the selected gear. Farrar and his co-counsel argued Chrysler knew drivers were exiting vehicles that were not actually in park and that the company chose not to install an available AutoPark backup system that would have stopped rollaways before they caused injuries.How Does This Verdict Fit Chrysler's Shifter History? The monostable shifter has been the focus of federal safety action and civil litigation for nearly a decade. FCA recalled roughly 1.1 million vehicles with the shifter in 2016 after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration linked the design to hundreds of rollaway complaints and dozens of injuries. Actor Anton Yelchin died in 2016 when his 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee rolled and pinned him against a gate. A federal multidistrict litigation in Michigan produced a split result in 2022, with a jury clearing FCA under most state laws but finding for plaintiffs under Utah law. The Dakota County verdict is one of the larger individual state-court awards tied to the shifter and signals that juries remain willing to hold FCA liable where state product liability law allows.What Damages Did the Jury Award? Court records show the $18 million covers pain, emotional distress, disfigurement, medical expenses and future care, lost earnings, and loss of services and companionship for Yang. The jury did not separately itemize punitive damages on the verdict form, and no appeal has been announced as of publication. Zimmerman, speaking after the verdict, said the "jury saw past Chrysler's excuses and held it responsible for the harm."Why This Verdict Matters for Plaintiff Lawyers For plaintiff attorneys handling personal injury verdict news in the automotive defect space, the Wu verdict is a reminder that rollaway cases tied to the monostable shifter remain viable in state court despite the mixed federal MDL outcome. It also confirms that loss-of-limb damages combined with a spousal consortium claim can support eight-figure awards in Minnesota. Lawyers tracking FCA litigation should note the use of the available AutoPark system as a central design-defect theory, a framing that gave the jury a clear alternative the manufacturer failed to adopt. 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 is a monostable gear shifter? A monostable shifter is an electronic gear selector that returns to the same physical center position after each use, regardless of whether the driver selected park, reverse, or drive. Unlike a traditional shifter where the lever rests in the selected gear, monostable designs rely on a small display to show the current gear. Drivers who step out without confirming park on the readout can leave the vehicle in drive or reverse. Q: Can you sue after a Jeep rollaway accident? Yes. Victims of rollaway incidents tied to known shifter defects typically bring product liability claims against the manufacturer, alleging design defect, failure to warn, or inadequate safety backup systems. State law controls whether punitive damages are available and how comparative fault is handled. Injured drivers in Minnesota can find local counsel through the Minnesota personal injury attorneys directory. Q: Is the monostable shifter still on the road? FCA recalled approximately 1.1 million vehicles with the monostable shifter in 2016 and pushed a software update intended to reduce the risk of rollaways. Many of those vehicles remain in service, and cases continue to be filed when the software update is alleged to be insufficient. Additional background is available in the Minnesota personal injury public resources.

Excessive Force
Riot personnel in gear

Federal Jury Returns $11.8 Million Verdict Against LAPD in Dodgers Celebration Excessive Force Case

A federal jury has awarded $11.8 million to a Dodgers fan permanently blinded in his right eye by an LAPD projectile. The unanimous verdict came down on April 16, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Isaac Castellanos, 22 at the time of the 2020 World Series celebration, was struck by a 37mm less-lethal launcher round fired by two Los Angeles Police Department officers. The jury found Officers Cody MacArthur and Jesse Pineda liable for negligence, excessive force, and violations of Castellanos' federal civil rights. Jurors deliberated less than two hours after six days of testimony, and the award could rise to approximately $35 million with court approval of treble damages.Case at a Glance Verdict: $11.8 million Case Type: Civil Rights / Excessive Force Court: U.S. District Court, Central District of California Verdict Date: April 16, 2026 Plaintiff: Isaac Castellanos Defendants: City of Los Angeles; Officers Cody MacArthur and Jesse Pineda Plaintiff Attorney: Pedram Esfandiary, Wisner Baum LLPWhat Happened the Night of the World Series Celebration? On October 27, 2020, the Los Angeles Dodgers won their first World Series title in 32 years. Castellanos, then 22 and a student at Cal State Long Beach, joined thousands of fans who gathered in downtown Los Angeles to celebrate. Early the following morning, Officers MacArthur and Pineda fired 37mm less-lethal launchers toward the crowd. One round struck Castellanos in the right eye, causing permanent blindness. Evidence presented at trial indicated the officers fired from roughly 145 feet away. LAPD policy restricts use of 37mm launchers to close-range deployments, and plaintiff's counsel argued the distance allowed the projectile to rise to eye level by the time it reached the crowd.How Did the Jury Find the LAPD Officers Liable? Jurors found both officers liable on every claim presented, including negligence, excessive force, and violation of Castellanos' constitutional rights. The panel reached its unanimous verdict in less than two hours following six days of testimony. Defense counsel argued that the officers' projectile was not the cause of Castellanos' injury, and that Castellanos had ignored dispersal orders issued by police that night. The jury rejected both arguments.Why Could the Damages Triple to $35 Million? The $11.8 million award covers future medical care, lost earning capacity, and past and future pain and suffering. Castellanos was a professional esports competitor at the time of the incident, a career path that depends heavily on visual precision and depth perception. Accident victims seeking context on how California juries weigh damages can consult California public resources for personal injury claims. Plaintiff counsel indicated the damages could rise to approximately $35 million with court approval of trebling. A final judgment has not yet been entered in the case.What Does This LAPD Excessive Force Verdict Signal? Pedram Esfandiary of Wisner Baum LLP, who represented Castellanos, framed the result as a broader indictment of projectile deployment at public gatherings. "I just hope it's another nail in the coffin of how police use these weapons, particularly in these group settings," Esfandiary said following the verdict. The case adds to a growing body of federal civil rights verdicts against police departments arising from crowd-control deployments of so-called less-lethal munitions. Similar lawsuits have proceeded in cities across the country following mass protests and public celebrations in 2020. Major Verdict tracks significant plaintiff verdicts and settlements across all 50 states. Browse the latest results or find a California plaintiff attorney with a proven trial record.Frequently Asked Questions What is the difference between compensatory and treble damages in a civil rights verdict? Compensatory damages reimburse a plaintiff for actual harm, including medical expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering. Treble damages are a statutory multiplier that can increase the award to three times the compensatory amount under certain civil rights statutes. In Castellanos' case, counsel has indicated the $11.8 million verdict could rise to approximately $35 million if the court approves trebling. What is a 37mm less-lethal launcher? A 37mm launcher fires large foam or hard-foam projectiles intended to incapacitate a target without causing fatal injury. Agency policies typically restrict their use to close-range deployments, because rounds fired at longer distances can rise and strike the head or face, causing blindness, skull fractures, or death. How long did the jury deliberate? The jury returned its unanimous verdict in under two hours, following six days of testimony and evidence at trial.

Member Search

Latest Featured Members

View All Major Verdict Members
Search Members by State
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6 Sample 7 Sample 8 Sample 9 Sample 10 Sample 11 Sample 12
Sample 13 Sample 14 Sample 15 Sample 16 Sample 17 Sample 18 Sample 19 Sample 20 Sample 21 Sample 22 Sample 23 Sample 24
Sample 32 Sample 25 Sample 26 Sample 27 Sample 28 Sample 29 Sample 30 Sample 31 Sample 33 Sample 34 Sample 35 Sample 36
Sample 37 Sample 38 Sample 39 Sample 40 Sample 41 Sample 42 Sample 43 Sample 44 Sample 45 Sample 46 Sample 47 Sample 48

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