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 6/1/2026! PUBLIC PRE-LAUNCH STARTED. THE SITE TEMPORARILY CONTAINS SAMPLE PROFILES. JOIN FOR FREE NOW BEFORE WE START MARKETING TO THE PUBLIC ON 6/1/2026! PUBLIC PRE-LAUNCH STARTED. THE SITE TEMPORARILY CONTAINS SAMPLE PROFILES. JOIN FOR FREE NOW BEFORE WE START MARKETING TO THE PUBLIC ON 6/1/2026! PUBLIC PRE-LAUNCH STARTED. THE SITE TEMPORARILY CONTAINS SAMPLE PROFILES. JOIN FOR FREE NOW BEFORE WE START MARKETING TO THE PUBLIC ON 6/1/2026!

Major Verdict, LLC Logo Major Verdict 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.

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.

Slip and Fall
Inside of casino showing a bunch of slot machines

$3.4 Million Slip-and-Fall Verdict Against Paris Las Vegas Casino After Jury Finds Shared Fault

A Clark County, Nevada jury awarded approximately $3.4 million to Jesse Lozano in a slip-and-fall case against the Paris Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas after a 10-day trial in March 2026. Lozano alleged he slipped on a spilled drink on the casino's wet marble floor in 2018, suffering severe back and cervical injuries that required surgery. The jury also assigned Lozano 50% comparative fault, reducing his collectible damages to roughly $1.7 million. The case was tried before Judge Danielle Pieper in Nevada's Eighth Judicial District Court.Case at a Glance Verdict: $3,400,000 Collectible Amount: $1,700,000 (after 50% comparative negligence reduction) Case Type: Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Case Number: A-20-823179-C Court: Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada Judge: Danielle Pieper Trial Length: 10 days (March 2026) Plaintiff: Jesse Lozano Defendant: Paris Hotel and Casino Plaintiff Attorney: Ramzy Ladah, Ladah Injury & Car Accident Lawyers Defense Attorney: Brandon Lew, Brandon Smerber Law Firm Amount Sought: $7.8 millionWhat Happened at the Paris Las Vegas Casino? In 2018, Jesse Lozano, then 60 years old, was walking through the main thoroughfare of the Paris Hotel and Casino with his family after attending a show. According to trial testimony, Lozano slipped on a spilled drink on the casino's marble floor. The fall caused serious injuries, including damage to his cervical spine. Lozano required extensive medical treatment including injections, spinal implants, and surgery. His medical expenses exceeded $2 million.Why Did the Jury Side with the Plaintiff? Lozano's attorney, Ramzy Ladah of Ladah Injury & Car Accident Lawyers, argued that the Paris Las Vegas failed to maintain safe conditions for its guests. A central point in the plaintiff's case was the casino's alleged lack of a proper maintenance schedule for its floors, particularly in high-traffic areas with marble surfaces. Ladah initially sought $7.8 million in damages to account for Lozano's medical expenses, pain and suffering, and the lasting impact of his injuries.How Did the Defense Respond? Defense attorney Brandon Lew of Brandon Smerber Law Firm challenged the plaintiff's version of events. The defense argued there was insufficient evidence to prove what Lozano actually slipped on. In a notable trial tactic, the defense suggested the liquid on the floor may have come from Lozano's own beer or a pocket flask. Despite this argument, the jury ultimately found in favor of the plaintiff, though it assigned significant shared responsibility.What Does 50% Comparative Negligence Mean for This Nevada Casino Slip-and-Fall Verdict? While the jury awarded approximately $3.4 million, it also found Lozano 50% at fault for his injuries. Under Nevada's comparative negligence law, a plaintiff's damages are reduced by their percentage of fault. As long as the plaintiff is not more than 50% at fault, they can still recover damages. In this case, Lozano's 50% share of fault cut his collectible damages roughly in half, bringing the actual recovery to approximately $1.7 million. The finding highlights how comparative negligence can shape the final outcome of a personal injury verdict, even when the jury agrees the defendant bears substantial responsibility.What This Verdict Means A $3.4 million verdict against one of the Las Vegas Strip's most recognizable casino properties highlights the real consequences of premises liability failures, even when the jury assigns shared fault. For the plaintiff, a 50% comparative negligence finding still resulted in a substantial recovery of approximately $1.7 million. 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. You can also browse the latest verdict news or find a plaintiff attorney in Nevada.Frequently Asked Questions Q: Can you still win a slip-and-fall case if you are partially at fault? A: Yes. In Nevada and many other states, comparative negligence allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they share some responsibility for the accident. The key threshold in Nevada is that the plaintiff's fault must not exceed 50%. The damages are reduced proportionally based on the plaintiff's share of fault. Q: What does a casino owe its guests in terms of floor safety? A: Casinos and other commercial properties have a legal duty to maintain reasonably safe conditions for visitors. This includes regular inspection and cleaning of floors, especially in high-traffic areas. When a property owner fails to address a known hazard or lacks a proper maintenance routine, they may be found liable for resulting injuries. Q: How are medical expenses handled in slip-and-fall verdicts? A: Medical expenses are a major component of damages in slip-and-fall cases. Juries consider past medical bills, future treatment costs, and related expenses like rehabilitation. In the Lozano case, medical expenses alone exceeded $2 million, reflecting the severity of spinal injuries that required surgery and implants. For more on how Nevada handles personal injury cases, see our Nevada personal injury resources.

Intentional Tort
Lady justice with sword and scales on pink background

Dallas Jury Awards $1.1 Billion in Child Assault Case, the Largest of Its Kind in U.S. History

A Dallas County jury returned a $1.1 billion verdict on March 26, 2026, in favor of a child assault survivor and his parents against Charles Edwin Brooks Jr. The verdict, delivered in the 134th District Court, included $291 million in compensatory damages and $810 million in punitive damages. It is the largest child assault verdict in United States history. The Buzbee Law Firm represented the plaintiff family.Case at a Glance Verdict: $1,100,000,000 ($291 million compensatory + $810 million punitive) Case Type: Intentional Tort (Child Assault) Court: 134th District Court, Dallas County, Texas Verdict Date: March 26, 2026 Plaintiff: Minor child B.S. and parents Defendant: Charles Edwin Brooks Jr. Plaintiff Attorneys: Tony Buzbee, Colby Holler, David Fortney, and Hall Sasnett (The Buzbee Law Firm) Defense Counsel: Daniel Karp and Fee, Smith, and Sharp, LLPWhat Happened on the Night of April 22, 2021? According to the civil lawsuit, Charles Brooks Jr. was married to the child's mother, Madison Ball, and was responsible for babysitting her 2-year-old son, identified in court filings as B.S. Brooks reportedly told Ball he needed to visit his grandfather at a Dallas hospital and took the child with him. He never went to the hospital. Instead, according to the lawsuit, Brooks severely beat and abused the toddler. When Ball later connected with Brooks on a FaceTime video call, she saw her son "barely breathing." Brooks refused to call 911 and, according to Ball, threatened to "snap her neck" if she contacted authorities. Ball called an ambulance despite the threats. First responders found the child beaten severely, non-responsive, and with adult bite marks on his legs.How Severe Were the Child's Injuries? The assault left the child with catastrophic, permanent injuries. Medical evaluations revealed a severe brain hemorrhage, traumatic brain injury, widespread organ damage, and neurological damage. The child spent months in the ICU in a medically induced coma. Now 7 years old, B.S. is bedridden, depends on a mechanical breathing machine, and has permanent severe brain damage. He will require round-the-clock medical care for the rest of his life.What Did the Jury Award? The jury awarded a total of $1.1 billion in damages: $291 million in compensatory damages to the child, covering lifetime medical costs, pain and suffering, and loss of quality of life $810 million in punitive damages split between the child and his parents, reflecting the jury's judgment on the severity and intentional nature of Brooks's conduct Punitive damages are intended to punish egregious behavior and deter others. In Texas, statutory caps on punitive damages generally apply, but exceptions exist for cases involving certain intentional criminal conduct.Who Is Charles Brooks Jr.? Brooks is the great-grandson of Percy Turner, one of the original investors in Humble Oil, the predecessor to ExxonMobil. He has been described in court filings as an unemployed trust fund beneficiary. Brooks was arrested 11 days after the April 2021 assault, later fled, and was recaptured. In 2023, he pleaded guilty to the criminal charge of injury to a child and was sentenced to 40 years in the Texas Department of Corrections. The civil case proceeded separately after the criminal conviction.Who Represented the Plaintiff Family? Houston-based trial attorney Tony Buzbee led the plaintiff's legal team at The Buzbee Law Firm, alongside Colby Holler, David Fortney, and Hall Sasnett. The defense was represented by Daniel Karp and the Dallas firm Fee, Smith, and Sharp, LLP. After the verdict, Buzbee stated: "We claim to value children in our society. This Texas jury stepped up and showed that."What Does This Verdict Signal for Intentional Tort Cases? The $1.1 billion award shows that Texas juries are willing to impose massive financial consequences in cases involving deliberate harm to children. While collection of the full judgment may prove difficult given the nature of the defendant's assets (held in trust structures), the verdict sets a powerful precedent for how civil courts value the life and future of a child permanently injured by intentional violence. The case also highlights the role of civil litigation as a separate path to accountability, even after a criminal conviction has been secured. Brooks's 40-year prison sentence addressed the criminal liability, but the civil verdict addresses the lifetime financial burden the child and his family will bear. Browse more intentional tort verdict news on Major Verdict. 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 the difference between a criminal conviction and a civil verdict in a child abuse case? A criminal case is brought by the state and can result in prison time. A civil case is filed by the victim or their family and seeks monetary damages. Different standards of proof apply: criminal cases require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," while civil cases use the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard. Both can proceed independently. Q: Can punitive damages exceed the Texas statutory cap? Texas generally caps punitive damages at the greater of $200,000 or twice the amount of economic damages plus up to $750,000 in non-economic damages. However, exceptions exist for cases involving certain intentional criminal conduct, including felony convictions. The jury's $810 million punitive award reflects the severity of the defendant's actions. Q: Will the plaintiff actually collect $1.1 billion? Collection depends on the defendant's available assets. Brooks is the beneficiary of a trust tied to early Humble Oil wealth, which may complicate recovery. Post-verdict proceedings will determine what assets can be reached to satisfy the judgment.

Premises Liability

$300,000 Verdict Against Carnival After Crew Over Serves Passenger 14 Shots of Tequila on Cruise Ship

A six-person federal jury in Miami awarded $300,000 to Diana Sanders, a 45-year-old California nurse, after finding that Carnival Corporation was negligent for serving her at least 14 shots of tequila in under nine hours aboard the Carnival Radiance. The verdict, returned on April 10, 2026, exceeded the $250,000 Sanders's legal team had requested at trial. The jury found Carnival 60% at fault and Sanders 40% responsible for her injuries.Case at a Glance Verdict: $300,000 Case Type: Premises Liability (Alcohol Over-service) Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami) Verdict Date: April 10, 2026 Plaintiff: Diana Sanders Defendant: Carnival Corporation Plaintiff Attorney: Spencer Aronfeld, Aronfeld Trial Lawyers (Coral Gables, FL) Fault Split: 60% Carnival / 40% SandersWhat Happened Aboard the Carnival Radiance? On January 5, 2024, Diana Sanders was a passenger on the Carnival Radiance when crew members served her at least 14 shots of tequila between approximately 2:58 pm and 11:37 pm, a span of 8 hours and 39 minutes. Shortly after the last drink was served, between 11:45 pm and approximately 12:20 am, Sanders suffered a severe fall down a flight of stairs. According to her complaint, the fall was a direct result of her intoxication, which was "caused by this over-service of alcohol." Sanders, a neonatal intensive care nurse from Vacaville, California, sustained serious injuries including a concussion, headaches, a possible traumatic brain injury, back injuries, tailbone injuries, and bruising.Why Did the Jury Side with the Passenger? The central legal question was whether Carnival's crew had a duty to stop serving alcohol to a visibly intoxicated passenger. Sanders's legal team argued that Carnival's crew had a responsibility "to supervise and/or assist passengers aboard the vessel who Carnival knew, or should have known, were engaging, or were likely to engage in behavior potentially dangerous to themselves or others." The jury agreed, finding Carnival 60% at fault for the injuries. Sanders was assigned 40% of the responsibility. Despite that shared fault, the jury still awarded $300,000, which was $50,000 more than her attorneys had asked for at trial. The trial lasted one week in Miami federal court before a six-person jury.How Did Carnival Defend the Case? Carnival fought the lawsuit aggressively, seeking dismissal multiple times before trial. The cruise line argued that Sanders "fails to identify any crew member who over-served her or which bar she consumed alcohol at," making it impossible to pinpoint a negligent employee. Carnival also argued that Sanders "does not sufficiently allege that any crew member knew or should have known that Plaintiff was intoxicated," pointing to the absence of allegations that she was "stumbling, sleeping at a bar, slurring her words, or exhibiting any other intoxicated-like behaviors." The jury rejected these arguments. A Carnival spokesperson stated after the verdict: "Carnival Corporation respectfully disagrees with the verdict and believes there are grounds for a new trial and appeal, which it will pursue."Who Represented the Plaintiff? Spencer Aronfeld, founder of Aronfeld Trial Lawyers in Coral Gables, Florida, represented Sanders at trial. Aronfeld, who specializes in cruise ship injury cases, noted the rarity of this result. "It's hard to get to trial, period," Aronfeld told the Miami Herald. "I've had many over-service cases that have settled but none that went the full distance." He added that "holding a major cruise line accountable for the over-service of alcohol is an extremely challenging legal argument to make."Why Does This Verdict Matter for Cruise Ship Injury Cases? This case touches on a gap between land-based alcohol liability laws and the rules that apply at sea. On land, most U.S. states enforce dram shop laws that hold bartenders and their employers liable when they serve a visibly intoxicated customer who then injures themselves or others. At sea, federal maritime law applies, and the standard is different. The jury's verdict signals that cruise lines cannot avoid accountability simply because dram shop statutes do not apply on the open ocean. The duty of reasonable care for passenger safety, a bedrock principle of maritime law, still applies when a guest becomes dangerously intoxicated onboard. Alcohol is a significant revenue source for cruise lines. According to the Miami Herald, cruise operators deliberately position "alcohol serving stations in every nook and cranny" to encourage onboard spending. This case is not isolated. In a separate lawsuit, Royal Caribbean was sued after allegedly serving a passenger 33 drinks in under 12 hours. For plaintiff trial attorneys handling cruise injury or over-service cases, this verdict provides a trial-tested framework for arguing that cruise lines bear responsibility for monitoring and limiting alcohol consumption by their passengers. 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 trial lawyer on Major Verdict who has the trial record to back it up.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is alcohol overservice liability? Alcohol overservice occurs when a business continues to serve alcoholic beverages to a person who is visibly intoxicated. On land, dram shop laws in most states allow the injured person to sue the establishment. At sea, the legal theory relies on the cruise line's general duty of care under maritime law rather than state-specific dram shop statutes. Q: Can a plaintiff recover damages if they were partially at fault? Under comparative negligence, a plaintiff can still recover damages even if they share some fault for their injuries. In this case, the jury assigned 40% fault to Sanders and 60% to Carnival. The $300,000 award reflects the jury's assessment after accounting for Sanders's share of responsibility. Q: Is Carnival appealing the verdict? Yes. Carnival stated that it "respectfully disagrees with the verdict and believes there are grounds for a new trial and appeal, which it will pursue." The final outcome of this case may change on appeal.

Auto Accident

$60 Million Settlement for Woman Left Paraplegic in Illinois Highway Construction Zone

A $60 million settlement was reached on April 13, 2026, for Sarah Grasser, a 31-year-old resident of Minooka, Illinois, who sustained a permanent spinal cord injury after a crash in a defective highway construction zone on Interstate 55 in Will County. The case resolved on the morning it was set for trial in Cook County, with ten construction and engineering companies sharing liability for leaving a hazardous roadway open to the public. Partners Bradley M. Cosgrove, Charles R. Haskins, and Joseph T. Murphy of Clifford Law Offices in Chicago represented Grasser.Case at a Glance Settlement: $60,000,000 Case Type: Premises Liability Court: Cook County Circuit Court Settlement Date: April 13, 2026 Plaintiff: Sarah Grasser, age 31, Minooka, Illinois Defendants: K-Five Construction Corporation; D. Construction; Gallagher Asphalt Corporation; R.M. Chin and Associates; AECOM; ATLAS Engineering Group; Traffic Control and Protection; TSI Traffic Control; Maintenance Coating Company; Work Zone Safety, Inc. Plaintiff Attorneys: Bradley M. Cosgrove, Charles R. Haskins, Joseph T. Murphy - Clifford Law Offices, Chicago Case No.: Grasser v. K-Five Construction Corp., et al., No. 2023 L 0277What Happened on Interstate 55 That Night? On August 30, 2022, Grasser was traveling on northbound Interstate 55 near Renwick Road in Will County when a nearby driver swerved to avoid a pothole that experts described as two lanes wide and several inches deep. That driver's vehicle struck Grasser's car. The collision caused her vehicle to roll over and come to rest in a roadside ditch. Grasser suffered a spinal cord injury at the T-12 vertebral level, leaving her permanently paralyzed from the waist down. She was 31 years old at the time of the crash.How Did Construction Failures Create This Hazard? The pothole was not ordinary road wear. Evidence developed during litigation showed it was the direct result of multiple construction and safety failures by the defendants. Workers milled too deeply into the structural layers of the pavement, weakening the road surface from below. Rather than following the planned staggered milling sequence, defendants milled all three lanes to a full five-inch depth simultaneously and reopened them to live traffic traveling at 65 mph without adequate repairs, warnings, or speed reductions. "Defendants failed to properly inspect, monitor and maintain the work zone throughout the day, and failed to fulfill their contractual and safety obligations to protect the public," said Cosgrove. "Collectively, these failures created a dangerous roadway condition that posed a foreseeable risk to motorists." The conditions violated Illinois Department of Transportation safety standards, according to Clifford Law Offices.Who Was Held Responsible? Ten separate companies shared liability: K-Five Construction Corporation, D. Construction, Gallagher Asphalt Corporation, R.M. Chin and Associates, AECOM, ATLAS Engineering Group, Traffic Control and Protection, TSI Traffic Control, Maintenance Coating Company, and Work Zone Safety, Inc. Each entity had a role in the construction, inspection, or traffic safety management of the work zone. Despite multiple parties being responsible for oversight, the roadway was reopened to public traffic while exhibiting conditions that created a foreseeable risk to motorists.What Are Sarah Grasser's Long-Term Needs? A T-12 spinal cord injury results in paraplegia, permanent loss of motor and sensory function in the lower body. For Grasser, this means a lifetime of medical care, mobility equipment, home modifications, and significantly reduced earning capacity. "This settlement will help Sarah cope with all of the physical, mental, and emotional needs for decades to come," Cosgrove said. "She led a normal life until that fateful evening. Had people been doing their jobs properly, she would be enjoying life with her friends and family today." The $60 million result reflects both the severity of her injuries and the projected cost of lifelong care for a young woman with decades ahead of her.Why Does This Case Matter for Highway Construction Accountability? Construction zone injury cases involving multiple contractors are among the most complex in personal injury litigation. Liability is routinely disputed across design firms, general contractors, subcontractors, and traffic control companies, with each party pointing to another. This result shows that when the evidence is developed properly and every responsible entity is named, accountability follows. The case settled on the morning of trial, a signal that defendants recognized the strength of the evidence against them. "This incident was preventable," Cosgrove said. "The roadway should not have been open to traffic without appropriate safeguards or corrective measures." For Illinois residents and travelers on public highways, the case is a reminder that construction companies and their contractors have a legal duty to protect the public, not just to complete the work. Cases like Sarah Grasser's show what plaintiff attorneys can accomplish when they fully investigate a complex, multi-defendant case and are prepared to take it to trial. If you have secured results like this one, Major Verdict is where trial outcomes like yours get the public recognition they deserve. Browse plaintiff attorneys in Illinois who have the track record to back it up.FAQ Q: Can I sue a construction company if I was injured in a road work zone? A: Yes. When a contractor or construction company leaves a roadway in an unsafe condition, injured motorists can bring claims against every entity responsible for the hazard. In complex highway cases, this may include general contractors, subcontractors, engineering firms, and traffic control companies. An experienced plaintiff attorney can identify all liable parties and hold them accountable. Q: What does it mean when a case "settles on the eve of trial"? A: A settlement reached immediately before trial typically signals that the defendants recognized serious exposure. Once a jury is about to be seated, defendants must weigh the risk of a higher jury verdict against the cost of settling. For plaintiffs, a pre-trial settlement provides faster and more certain compensation than a trial outcome. Q: How are damages calculated in paraplegia cases? A: Damages in spinal cord injury cases typically include past and future medical expenses, long-term in-home care, lost earning capacity, and compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. For younger plaintiffs, future care projections extend over a long life expectancy — one of the primary drivers of large settlement figures in permanent paralysis cases.

Slip and Fall

$2.58M Verdict in Connecticut Parking Garage Slip-and-Fall Case

A Connecticut jury returned a verdict of $2,582,952.89 in a premises liability case arising from a slip-and-fall incident in a parking garage, finding the defendants 99% at fault after just two hours of deliberation. Attorney Cassandra Hardy of The Flood Law Firm LLC in Middletown, Connecticut, represented the plaintiff and secured the award in April 2026.Case at a Glance Verdict: $2,582,952.89 Case Type: Premises Liability (Slip-and-Fall) Location: Middletown, Connecticut Verdict Date: April 2026 Defendant: Parking garage property owner(s) (not identified in court records) Plaintiff Attorney: Cassandra Hardy, The Flood Law Firm LLC Economic Damages: $309,043.32 Non-Economic Damages: $2,273,909.57What Happened in This Case? The plaintiff suffered a fractured humerus in a slip-and-fall at a parking garage. The injury required surgical intervention and may necessitate a future joint replacement, according to The Flood Law Firm. The defendants' insurer made a final pre-trial settlement offer of $90,000. The Flood Law Firm rejected it and took the case to trial. The jury's $2,582,952.89 verdict represents nearly 29 times the defendant's last offer. How Did the Jury Rule on Fault? The jury assigned 99% of the fault to the defendants, a finding that reflects the strength of the evidence presented at trial. In Connecticut, a plaintiff found partially at fault can still recover damages reduced by their share of responsibility. A 1% allocation to the plaintiff in this case had minimal impact on the final award. The verdict came after only two hours of deliberation, a timeline that signals the jury found the liability case clear-cut.What Did the Jury Award? The total award of $2,582,952.89 broke down into two components: Economic damages: $309,043.32 - covering medical expenses, future medical costs, and other out-of-pocket losses Non-economic damages: $2,273,909.57 - reflecting the pain, suffering, and lasting reduction in quality of life the plaintiff experienced as a result of the injury The non-economic portion of the award accounts for more than 88% of the total verdict, underscoring how significantly the fractured humerus and its consequences affected the plaintiff's daily life. Who Represented the Plaintiff? Attorney Cassandra Hardy led the trial for The Flood Law Firm LLC. Hardy joined the firm in 2025 after spending several years as defense counsel for insurance companies, experience that gives her direct insight into how insurers build and evaluate cases. Hardy earned her law degree from Quinnipiac University School of Law, graduating summa cum laude. She is admitted to practice in Connecticut and the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, and is a member of the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association and the American Association for Justice. "This verdict represents not only justice for our client but also accountability for negligent property owners," a firm spokesperson said.Why This Verdict Matters for Property Owners and Injury Victims Parking garages present a specific category of premises liability risk. Property owners and managers have a legal duty to maintain safe conditions for visitors. When they fail, Connecticut juries have shown a willingness to hold them fully accountable. This case also illustrates a pattern seen across high-value premises liability verdicts: insurers routinely make low initial offers, banking on plaintiffs accepting less than their case is worth. Here, the gap between the $90,000 pre-trial offer and the $2,582,952.89 verdict was nearly $2.5 million. For attorneys handling similar cases in Connecticut, the damages breakdown and the jury's swift fault determination make this verdict a useful data point when evaluating comparable claims. To see more plaintiff trial results from Connecticut, visit the Connecticut personal injury public resources on Major Verdict.Find a Plaintiff Attorney With a Trial Record to Match Verdicts like this one show what juries are willing to award when the evidence is strong and the attorney is prepared. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured in a slip-and-fall or other premises liability incident, find a Connecticut plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict who has the trial record to back it up. Are you a plaintiff attorney with verdicts or settlements worth showcasing? Join Major Verdict and put your results in front of the clients and colleagues who are looking for them.FAQ Q: What is the difference between economic and non-economic damages in a Connecticut premises liability case? A: Economic damages cover measurable financial losses such as medical bills, future treatment costs, and lost wages. Non-economic damages compensate for pain, suffering, and the overall impact the injury has on the plaintiff's life. Connecticut does not cap non-economic damages in most personal injury cases, which allows juries to award amounts that reflect the true severity of the harm. Q: What does a 99% fault finding mean for the plaintiff's recovery? A: Under Connecticut's modified comparative negligence law, a plaintiff's damages are reduced by their percentage of fault. If a plaintiff is found 1% at fault, they recover 99% of the total verdict. A plaintiff assigned 51% or more of the fault cannot recover at all. In this case, the 99% fault finding against the defendants meant the plaintiff's recovery was reduced by only 1%. Q: How are future medical costs handled in a premises liability verdict? A: Future medical expenses are typically included in the economic damages portion of a verdict when the evidence supports anticipated ongoing treatment. In this case, the plaintiff faces a possible future joint replacement, a cost that may have factored into the jury's economic damages calculation of $309,043.32.

Product Liability

Abbott Hit With $70 Million Verdict Over Similac Formula Linked to NEC in Premature Infants

A Cook County jury awarded $70 million to four Illinois families on April 10, 2026, finding that Abbott Laboratories defectively designed its Similac Special Care formula and failed to warn of the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis in premature infants. The verdict, reached in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago, includes $53 million in compensatory damages and $17 million in punitive damages. It is Abbott's second trial loss in the NEC infant formula litigation and the first verdict against the company in Illinois state court.Case at a Glance Total Verdict: $70,000,000 Compensatory Damages: $53,000,000 Punitive Damages: $17,000,000 Case Type: Product Liability - Defective Design / Failure to Warn Court: Cook County Circuit Court, Chicago, Illinois Verdict Date: April 10, 2026 Plaintiffs: Four Illinois mothers (names not publicly released) Defendant: Abbott Laboratories Plaintiff Attorney(s): Ben Whiting, Senior Partner, Keller Postman Defense Attorney: Hariklia Karis, Partner, Kirkland & EllisWhat Did the Jury Find Abbott Liable For? The jury found Abbott liable on three separate grounds: defective product design, failure to warn consumers of the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis, and negligence leading to the infants' injuries. All four verdicts were unanimous. The four lawsuits were filed in 2022 and consolidated for trial. Each case involved a premature infant fed Similac Special Care while hospitalized at a Chicago-area medical center between 2012 and 2019. The children all survived NEC but continue to experience lasting health complications. Three of the four underwent surgery. Attorneys for the mothers argued that Abbott's cow's milk-based formula is unreasonably dangerous for premature infants and that the company failed to place adequate warnings on its labeling. Plaintiff attorney Grimsley told jurors directly: "Formula is harmful. It increases the risk of NEC. It caused and contributed to all four plaintiffs' NEC."What Is NEC and Why Does It Matter for Premature Infants? Necrotizing enterocolitis is a severe intestinal disease in which the lining of the intestine becomes inflamed and begins to die. It predominantly strikes premature infants and carries a mortality rate exceeding 20 percent. For families in the NICU, an NEC diagnosis is one of the most feared outcomes. Research has established an association between cow's milk-based formula in premature infants and higher rates of NEC. The plaintiffs' legal theory was that Abbott knew about this association for years and continued marketing Similac Special Care to hospital intensive care units without adequate warnings. Abbott has consistently denied that its formula causes NEC. Defense attorneys argued that the infants had multiple other risk factors, including their prematurity itself and antibiotic use, and pointed to a 2024 joint statement from the FDA, CDC, and a National Institutes of Health working group concluding that the absence of breast milk rather than formula exposure is associated with increased NEC risk.Who Represented the Plaintiff Families? The four families were represented by Ben Whiting, Senior Partner at Keller Postman, a national litigation firm that has been at the center of the NEC baby formula litigation. Whiting released a statement following the verdict: "The jury's verdicts on behalf of these four infants confirm once again what Abbott has known for years and chosen to ignore: that Abbott's cow's milk-based formula causes NEC in premature infants, often with devastating and irreversible consequences. Four families walked into that courtroom asking for justice, and four families received it. We are so proud to have stood beside them, and we are not done." Keller Postman previously secured the first-ever trial verdict holding a cow's milk-based formula manufacturer liable for NEC, a $60 million verdict against Mead Johnson in St. Clair County, Illinois, in 2024.What This Verdict Means for 1,700+ Pending Lawsuits Abbott currently faces more than 1,700 lawsuits in state and federal courts across the country over its preterm infant formula products. The Cook County verdict is the latest in a series of state court wins for plaintiffs and stands in contrast to the federal multidistrict litigation, where cases have moved slowly. By April 2026, there were 782 cases pending in the federal MDL overseen by Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Judge Pallmeyer stopped three bellwether cases from going to trial in 2025, frequently ruling in Abbott's favor on summary judgment. The federal and state court trajectories have diverged sharply. For the broader litigation, the Cook County result matters. It is Abbott's second state court loss. A St. Louis jury previously awarded $495 million against Abbott in a separate NEC case. Both that verdict and Thursday's verdict have been appealed by Abbott. Abbott's CEO has previously suggested the company could discontinue its preterm infant formula if litigation continued, a prospect that has alarmed neonatologists who view the product as medically necessary for some premature infants.Conclusion The $70 million Cook County verdict against Abbott Laboratories is one of the largest product liability verdicts of 2026 and adds significant momentum to what is shaping up to be one of the most consequential mass tort litigations in the country. For plaintiff families, it is a confirmation that juries will hold manufacturers accountable when the evidence shows they knew of risks and failed to act. If your premature infant developed NEC after being fed Similac or another cow's milk-based formula in the NICU, 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.FAQ Q: What is necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC)? A: Necrotizing enterocolitis is a life-threatening intestinal disease that primarily affects premature infants. The condition causes the lining of the intestine to become inflamed and die and carries a mortality rate above 20 percent. Infants who survive NEC often face long-term health complications and, in serious cases, require surgery. Q: What is the difference between compensatory and punitive damages in this verdict? A: Compensatory damages are awarded to cover the actual losses suffered by the plaintiffs, including medical expenses, pain and suffering, and future care costs. Punitive damages are awarded separately and are intended to punish a defendant for conduct the jury finds especially reckless or willful. In this case, the jury awarded $53 million in compensatory damages and then returned an additional $17 million in punitive damages against Abbott. Q: What does this verdict mean for other NEC lawsuits against Abbott? A: Abbott faces more than 1,700 NEC-related lawsuits in state and federal courts. State court plaintiffs have won the cases that have gone to trial, while federal court cases have largely stalled. Each verdict that holds Abbott liable increases pressure on the company to consider settlement and establishes that juries are willing to hold formula manufacturers accountable when they find the evidence supports it.

Medical Malpractice

Jury Awards $49 Million in Connecticut Cervical Cancer Screening Verdict Against Westmed Medical Group

A Connecticut jury awarded $49 million to a Darien woman after finding that her gynecologist at Westmed Medical Group repeatedly failed to follow standard HPV screening protocols over six years, allowing cervical cancer to progress to a late-stage, metastatic disease. The verdict was returned on April 9, 2026, after just three hours of jury deliberation following a five-week trial in Connecticut Superior Court in Stamford.Case at a Glance Verdict: $49 million ($39 million to plaintiff, $10 million to spouse) Case Type: Medical Malpractice (failure to follow HPV screening protocols) Court: Connecticut Superior Court, Stamford Judge: Yamini Menon Verdict Date: April 9, 2026 Plaintiff: Jennifer Anderson, Darien, Connecticut Defendant: Westmed Medical Group Plaintiff Attorney(s): Peter Dreyer and Sarah Russell, Silver Golub & Teitell LLP Trial Length: 5 weeks Deliberation: 3 hoursWhat Happened to Jennifer Anderson? Jennifer Anderson was a patient of an obstetrician/gynecologist employed by Westmed Medical Group from at least 2013 through 2019. During that time, she attended annual visits and underwent routine testing. Over the course of those visits, Anderson repeatedly tested positive for high-risk strains of HPV, including HPV 16, a genotype known to place patients at significantly elevated risk for cervical cancer, according to her attorneys at Silver Golub & Teitell. Despite those results, the doctor never performed a colposcopy, a standard follow-up procedure required under the applicable standard of care for patients with persistent high-risk HPV.How Was the Cancer Discovered? In September 2019, Anderson visited the doctor with complaints of irregular menstrual cycles and bleeding. A mass was discovered on her cervix, and subsequent testing confirmed invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. The cancer had already spread to her chest, abdomen, and pelvis. Anderson now suffers from late-stage metastatic cervical cancer, which her attorneys say is expected to cause her death.What Did the Jury Award? After a five-week trial before Judge Yamini Menon, the jury deliberated for approximately three hours before finding the defendants negligent. The jury awarded $39 million to Jennifer Anderson and $10 million to her husband in damages. The verdict is one of the largest medical malpractice awards in Connecticut in recent years.What Are the Plaintiff's Attorneys Saying? Peter Dreyer, a partner at Silver Golub & Teitell, said in a statement: "Jennifer Anderson did everything right. She went to her doctor every year, she had her tests done, and she trusted that her results would be acted upon." Sarah Russell, also a partner at the firm, emphasized the preventable nature of the outcome: "What makes this case so troubling is that cervical cancer is one of the most preventable cancers we have."How Has Westmed Responded? A Westmed spokesman said the company disagrees with the verdict but empathizes with the Andersons. The spokesman confirmed that Westmed intends to file post-trial motions and an appeal.A Verdict That Underscores the Cost of Missed Screening This $49 million verdict sends a clear message about the consequences of failing to follow established screening protocols for high-risk patients. For Jennifer Anderson, years of positive HPV tests went without the standard follow-up that could have caught her cancer at a treatable stage. 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. Find a plaintiff personal injury attorney in Connecticut by browsing Major Verdict members.FAQ Q: What is a colposcopy, and why is it important for HPV-positive patients?A: A colposcopy is a procedure that uses a magnifying instrument to closely examine the cervix for abnormal cells. It is the standard follow-up when a patient tests positive for high-risk HPV strains, particularly HPV 16, which carries a significantly elevated risk of cervical cancer. Q: Can cervical cancer be prevented with proper screening?A: Cervical cancer is considered one of the most preventable cancers. Regular Pap tests and HPV screening can detect precancerous changes early, allowing treatment before cancer develops. When high-risk HPV is identified, follow-up procedures like colposcopy are critical to catching abnormalities before they progress. Q: What does it mean that the defendant plans to appeal?A: When a defendant announces intent to appeal, it means they plan to ask a higher court to review the trial court's decision. The verdict amount is not final until appeals are resolved, which can take months or years. The plaintiff may not collect the full award until the appeals process concludes.

Premises Liability

$2.8 Million BBQ Sauce Burn Verdict Against Bill Miller Bar-B-Q Now Fuels an Insurance Showdown

A 225th Civil District Court jury in Bexar County, Texas awarded Genesis Monita $2,815,925 in January 2025 after she suffered second-degree burns from a cup of barbecue sauce served at nearly 190 degrees at a Bill Miller Bar-B-Q drive-thru in San Antonio. The jury found the restaurant chain 100% liable and grossly negligent, delivering its verdict in less than two hours. Now, more than a year later, the case has entered a second legal arena: Bill Miller's own insurer is suing to avoid paying a dime of that judgment.Case at a Glance Verdict: $2,815,925 Case Type: Premises Liability / Gross Negligence Court: 225th Civil District Court, Bexar County, Texas Verdict Date: January 17, 2025 Plaintiff: Genesis Monita Defendant: Bill Miller Bar-B-Q Enterprises, LLC Plaintiff Attorney: Lawrence Morales IIWhat Happened at the Bill Miller Drive-Thru? On the morning of May 19, 2023, Genesis Monita, then an 18-year-old San Antonio high school senior, pulled through the Bill Miller Bar-B-Q drive-thru on SW Loop 410 with her sister. She ordered breakfast tacos with barbecue sauce. After receiving her food, she pulled into a nearby parking space to eat. When she reached into the bag and removed the small plastic cup of sauce, it was so hot she immediately dropped it. The sauce spilled onto her right thigh, causing second-degree burns and permanent scarring. Testing and court evidence revealed the sauce had been served at 189 degrees Fahrenheit. Texas food service guidelines cap hot-held sauces at 135 degrees. Bill Miller's own internal policy set a minimum serving temperature of 165 degrees. The sauce that burned Monita was 54 degrees above the state guideline and 24 degrees above what the company itself required. Monita's attorneys also argued the restaurant violated its own policy by serving the sauce in a thin plastic cup rather than a styrofoam container, which contributed to the injury.Why Did the Jury Award $1.89 Million in Punitive Damages? The jury did not treat this as an isolated mistake. Plaintiff attorney Lawrence Morales II told jurors that a similar burn had occurred at the same location approximately two years earlier and that Bill Miller had failed to address the problem. "How many more people need to be burned by the barbecue sauce for Bill Miller to fix it?" Morales said during trial, according to local news coverage. After closing arguments, the jury of six men and six women deliberated for less than two hours before returning a verdict finding Bill Miller 100% at fault. The damages broke down as follows: $925,925 in actual damages, covering medical expenses, past and future physical pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment $1,890,000 in punitive damages, based on a finding of gross negligence The punitive damages figure reflects the jury's view that Bill Miller's conduct went beyond carelessness. Under Texas law, punitive damages require a finding that the defendant acted with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. "We feel very pleased by the results of this case," Morales said following the verdict. "Genesis just wanted justice." Bill Miller Bar-B-Q's defense argued that Monita was aware the sauce was always served hot and that her own actions caused the spill. The jury rejected that argument entirely.Now the Insurer Is Fighting the Bill Winning a verdict is one thing. Collecting it is another. On April 7, 2026, Mt. Hawley Insurance Company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking a court declaration that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify Bill Miller Bar-B-Q for the Monita judgment. The case is Mt. Hawley Insurance Company v. Bill Miller Bar-B-Q Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02826. Mt. Hawley's argument centers on a self-insured retention endorsement in the commercial general liability policy it issued to Bill Miller. That endorsement required Bill Miller to handle and fund claims up to $1,000,000 per occurrence before the insurer's coverage kicked in. It also required Bill Miller to provide immediate written notice to Mt. Hawley when certain triggers were met, including any lawsuit involving serious burns, any suit seeking punitive damages, and any claim exceeding 50% of the retention amount. The Monita case triggered all three. According to Mt. Hawley's filing, Bill Miller did not notify the insurer of the incident, the original petition, or the amended petition adding punitive damages until on or about January 21, 2025, after the jury had already returned its verdict. That gap stretches more than a year from the date the lawsuit was filed. Mt. Hawley disclaimed coverage by letter on March 26, 2025, before filing the federal action. The insurer raises two separate grounds for denying coverage. First, it contends that Bill Miller's failure to provide timely notice breached an express condition of the policy and that Mt. Hawley was prejudiced because it had no opportunity to investigate, participate in defense strategy, or pursue settlement before liability was determined. Second, Mt. Hawley argues that the $1,890,000 punitive damages award is not insurable as a matter of New York law, which governs the policy under a choice-of-law provision. No court ruling has been issued, and Bill Miller has not yet presented its position.What This Case Signals for Plaintiff Attorneys The Bill Miller verdict illustrates two realities plaintiff lawyers know well. First, juries respond to evidence of prior knowledge. When a defendant can be shown to have been aware of a recurring hazard and failed to correct it, punitive damages become a real possibility. The speed of the jury's deliberations here reflects how clearly the evidence landed. Second, a verdict is the beginning of the collection fight, not the end. The Mt. Hawley coverage dispute is a reminder that large judgments against commercial defendants often trigger insurer challenges, particularly when notice obligations under self-insured retention policies were missed. Plaintiff attorneys pursuing similar food service or premises cases should anticipate this dynamic from the outset and factor commercial insurance structures into their case strategy early. 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. Or if you've been seriously injured by a restaurant's negligence, find plaintiff personal injury lawyers in Texas with a proven trial record.FAQ Q: What are punitive damages, and why were they awarded here? A: Punitive damages are awarded on top of compensatory damages when a jury finds that a defendant's conduct was especially reckless or malicious. In Texas, a gross negligence finding is required. Here, the jury concluded that Bill Miller's conscious disregard for customer safety, including serving sauce far above safe temperatures and ignoring a prior burn incident, justified the additional $1,890,000 award. Q: What is a self-insured retention, and how does it differ from a deductible? A: A self-insured retention (SIR) requires the policyholder to pay and manage all costs up to a set dollar threshold before the insurer has any obligation. Unlike a deductible, an SIR also typically requires the policyholder to handle defense duties within that layer. If the policyholder fails to meet notice or cooperation requirements attached to the SIR, the insurer may argue its coverage obligations never attached. Q: Can an insurer refuse to pay a verdict because its policyholder failed to give timely notice? A: In many states, yes. Late notice can void coverage entirely if the insurer can show it was prejudiced by the delay, or if the policy contains strict notice conditions. The Mt. Hawley case will turn on whether Bill Miller's failure to report before trial triggers that consequence under New York federal court applying the applicable policy terms. Mt. Hawley has also raised a separate argument that punitive damages are not insurable under New York law, which could eliminate $1.89 million of the judgment from coverage entirely regardless of the notice issue.

Medical Malpractice

$51 Million Cook County Verdict After ER Fails to Test Man's Blood Sugar

A Cook County jury has awarded more than $51,000,000 to an Illinois man who suffered a permanent brain injury after physicians at OSF Heart of Mary Medical Center failed to order a blood sugar test during a 2022 emergency room visit. The verdict, reported April 8, 2026, stands as one of the largest medical malpractice awards in recent Cook County history and puts ER diabetes screening under sharp scrutiny.Case at a Glance Verdict: $51,000,000+ Case Type: Medical Malpractice Court: Cook County Court, Illinois Verdict Date: April 2026 Plaintiff: John Reinke Defendant: OSF Heart of Mary Medical Center; unnamed physician Plaintiff Attorney: Jason WilliamsWhat Happened at OSF Heart of Mary: The ER Visit That Led to a $51M Cook County Medical Malpractice Verdict John Reinke, 47, arrived at OSF Heart of Mary Medical Center complaining of a severe headache unlike anything he had experienced before. According to trial testimony, Reinke presented with known risk factors for diabetes, including obesity and a history of gout. Despite those indicators, physicians did not order a blood glucose test. Reinke was diagnosed with a tension headache, given medication, and discharged. Days later, he was found unresponsive. He had suffered a cardiac arrest caused by a severe diabetic crisis.The Injuries John Reinke Now Lives With Reinke sustained a permanent brain injury as a result of the cardiac arrest. He now requires round-the-clock care and is unable to walk, talk, or eat on his own. His legal team noted that the verdict, if it holds, could help fund access to a communication device he can operate using only his eyes. The gap between what a simple blood sugar test costs and what the failure to order one ultimately cost John Reinke forms the core of this case.Why Did the Jury Side with the Plaintiff? Plaintiff attorneys argued that a routine glucose screening would have identified Reinke's condition and allowed physicians to intervene before the diabetic crisis occurred. Given his documented risk factors, the decision not to test fell outside the accepted standard of care, according to the trial record. "I hope that screening for diabetes becomes a mantra in emergency rooms across the country so that outcomes like this can be avoided," said attorney Jason Williams. OSF Healthcare System and the physician named in the lawsuit deny any negligence and have not publicly stated whether they intend to appeal.What This Cook County Medical Malpractice Verdict Signals for Emergency Medicine ER misdiagnosis cases are among the most contested in Illinois medical malpractice litigation. Plaintiffs must show not just that a mistake was made, but that the mistake deviated from what a reasonably competent physician would have done under the same circumstances. Illinois does not cap compensatory damages in medical malpractice cases, which gives juries in this state the latitude to award figures that reflect the true lifetime cost of catastrophic injury. For a plaintiff like Reinke, whose care needs are permanent and extensive, that latitude matters enormously. Juries in Cook County have returned significant medical malpractice verdicts when the facts are clear and the harm is severe. A verdict north of $51 million reflects both the gravity of Reinke's injuries and the jury's assessment of what adequate care should have looked like. For plaintiff attorneys watching this case, the facts are instructive: documented risk factors on the record, a straightforward omission, and a catastrophic outcome. That combination tends to resonate in the jury room.FAQ Q: What does medical malpractice mean in an emergency room setting? A: Medical malpractice occurs when a healthcare provider fails to meet the accepted standard of care and that failure causes harm to the patient. In an ER context, this can include failing to order tests that a reasonably competent physician would have ordered given the patient's symptoms and risk factors. The plaintiff must prove both that the standard was breached and that the breach directly caused the injury. Q: What types of damages can a jury award in an Illinois medical malpractice case? A: Illinois juries can award compensatory damages covering actual losses such as past and future medical expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering. The source reporting on this verdict does not break down the $51 million award into specific categories. Illinois does not cap compensatory damages in medical malpractice cases, following a 2010 Illinois Supreme Court ruling that struck down prior limits. Verdicts like this one show what juries are prepared to award when the evidence is clear and the harm is permanent. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured by a medical error, the trial record of your attorney matters. Find a plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict who has the results to back it up.

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.

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