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.

Commercial Trucking Crash

Manhattan Firm Secures $2,145,000 Settlement After Bucket Truck Reverses Into Stopped Car Twice

A Manhattan personal injury law firm has secured a $2,145,000 settlement for three occupants of a vehicle that was struck twice by a reversing commercial bucket truck at a New York City intersection. The case against the driver and his employer, E-J Electric Installation Company, resolved just one day before scheduled jury selection, with the lead plaintiff receiving $2,020,000 after suffering multiple surgeries and losing his job.Case at a Glance Settlement: $2,145,000 (total) Case Type: Commercial Truck Accident Location: West 165th Street & Fort Washington Avenue, Manhattan, NY Incident Date: March 2018 Plaintiffs: Ollies Mercedes, Ramon Abreu, Raul Balbuena Defendant: Antonio Abreu; E-J Electric Installation Company Plaintiff Attorney: Michael Gunzburg, Michael Gunzburg, P.C.What Happened at the Intersection? In March 2018, Ollies Mercedes, Ramon Abreu, and Raul Balbuena were stopped at a red light at West 165th Street and Fort Washington Avenue in Manhattan. Antonio Abreu, a driver for E-J Electric Installation Company, was operating a commercial bucket truck nearby. According to the press release, Abreu reversed the truck at high speed into the stopped vehicle, then pulled forward and reversed a second time, striking the car again in the same incident. All three occupants were transported to the emergency room by ambulance.How Did Liability Get Resolved? The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability. That ruling meant the legal question of fault was settled before trial, the case moved forward solely on the issue of damages. Partial summary judgment on liability is a significant development in any personal injury case. It removes the risk of a jury finding for the defense on fault and allows the plaintiff's legal team to focus entirely on presenting the full scope of injuries and financial losses. Raul Balbuena settled early in the proceedings. Ollies Mercedes and Ramon Abreu held out, ultimately reaching their settlements the day before jury selection was set to begin.What Were the Injuries? The three plaintiffs sustained varying degrees of injury, with Mercedes bearing the most serious consequences. Ollies Mercedes, who was 24 years old at the time of the crash, suffered: Herniated discs in his neck and lower back A torn shoulder labrum requiring surgery with four permanent anchors A torn ligament in his right foot requiring open surgical repair Chondromalacia and synovitis Mercedes was unable to work for nine months following the crash. He eventually left his position at FedEx entirely due to his injuries. His settlement totaled $2,020,000. Ramon Abreu was unable to work for approximately two years. His settlement was $175,000. Raul Balbuena, who settled early, received $50,000.Why Did This Case Settle Just Before Trial? Commercial vehicle cases often resolve on the eve of trial once defendants weigh the cost of an adverse jury verdict. With liability already decided by the court, the only remaining question for a jury would have been how much to award. For E-J Electric Installation Company, the calculus at that point was straightforward: proceed to trial with a plaintiff who had documented multiple surgeries, permanent hardware in his shoulder, and a lost career, or negotiate. Mercedes and Abreu settled the day before jury selection. Attorney Michael Gunzburg commented on the outcome: "Ollies had multiple surgeries, lost his job, and had his life turned upside down, all because a commercial driver acted recklessly and a company failed to prevent it. Getting a result like this for him and his co-plaintiffs is exactly why we do this work." Cases involving commercial vehicle negligence in New York can produce significant results when liability is clear and injuries are well-documented. For a look at what plaintiff attorneys across the country are winning at trial and in settlement, visit the latest personal injury verdict news at Major Verdict. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured in a truck or commercial vehicle accident, results like this one show what can be achieved 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.Case FAQ Q: How are damages divided when multiple plaintiffs are part of the same settlement? A: Each plaintiff's share is determined by the severity of their injuries, the economic losses they suffered, and sometimes the strength of their individual claims within the case. In this case, Ollies Mercedes received $2,020,000 of the $2,145,000 total, reflecting the extent of his surgeries, lost income, and long-term impact. Plaintiffs with less severe injuries, like Balbuena, may settle separately and earlier in the litigation. Q: What does partial summary judgment on liability mean in a personal injury case? A: A partial summary judgment on liability means the court ruled before trial that the defendant was legally responsible for the incident. The case then proceeds only on the question of damages: how much money the injured parties should receive. This ruling significantly strengthens the plaintiff's position heading into trial or settlement negotiations.

Medical Malpractice

New Jersey Jury Awards $1,245,000 in Medical Malpractice Wrongful Death Case Over Delayed Bowel Obstruction Surgery

A Middlesex County jury has returned a $1,245,000 judgment in a New Jersey medical malpractice wrongful death case involving a 58-year-old father whose death followed a delayed surgical response to a large bowel obstruction. The defense never made a settlement offer, maintaining throughout litigation that this was a "no-pay" case. The jury disagreed, voting 7-1 on liability and 8-0 on damages.Case at a Glance Final Judgment: ~$1,245,000 (including pre-judgment interest) Gross Verdict: $1,312,500 Scafidi Reduction: 20% Case Type: Medical Malpractice / Wrongful Death Court: Middlesex County Superior Court, New Jersey Judge: Hon. Patrick Bradshaw Jury Vote: 7-1 liability / 8-0 damages Plaintiff Attorneys: Amos Gern (partner) and John T. Brost (associate), Sarno da Costa D'Aniello Maceri Webb LLC Plaintiff Expert: Jeffrey Freed, MD (colorectal surgeon)What Happened to the Patient? The decedent was a 58-year-old father of three adult daughters who presented with a serious large bowel obstruction. According to trial evidence, surgery was delayed despite the severity of his condition. The delay allowed his condition to deteriorate. He ultimately required a Hartmann's Procedure, a colectomy and colostomy, but by the time surgery occurred, his bowel had already suffered ischemia. He developed sepsis and endured 39 days of significant pain and medical complications before his death. His three daughters testified at trial about watching their father's health decline over those final weeks.Why Did the Jury Side with the Plaintiff? Jeffrey Freed, MD, a colorectal surgeon from New York City, served as the plaintiff's standard-of-care expert. He testified that serious large bowel obstructions rarely resolve without surgery, and that prompt surgical decision-making is necessary to prevent the exact cascade of complications the patient experienced. The court also refused to give a judgment charge to the jury, a ruling that reflected the court's view that a discretionary medical judgment defense was not supported by the facts developed at trial. To help the jury work through more than 11,000 pages of hospital records, the trial team used presentation technology from Vincent Maggiano of Dynamic Evidence, allowing jurors to follow key chart entries and treatment decisions on a clear timeline. During deliberations, the jury specifically requested to review an economic damages summary prepared by plaintiff's economist Paul Gazaleh, CPA, a signal the panel was taking the damages phase seriously.How Were Damages Calculated? The case involved several notable damages considerations. The decedent worked as a box truck driver earning approximately $50,000 per year but had been furloughed before his hospitalization due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Because he was not actively working at the time, no lost income claim was presented to the jury. Instead, the family's recovery centered on $600,000 in damages under the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Green v. Bittner, which allows surviving family members to recover for the loss of a loved one's guidance, advice, and companionship. The parties stipulated to a life expectancy of 14.9 years. The jury returned a gross verdict of $1,312,500. Under New Jersey's Scafidi doctrine, the award was reduced by 20% to account for the role of the decedent's pre-existing medical conditions. Because the case had been pending since early 2022, pre-judgment interest pushed the final judgment to approximately $1,245,000, nearly identical to the plaintiff's pre-trial demand of $1.25 million.The Defense Never Made an Offer One of the more striking aspects of this case is that the defense characterized it as a "no-pay" matter throughout litigation and never extended a settlement offer. That position held until the jury returned its verdict. Attorneys Amos Gern and John T. Brost of Sarno da Costa D'Aniello Maceri Webb LLC carried the case through trial, presenting the complex medical evidence and the family's loss in a way that produced a near-unanimous damages verdict.Case Conclusion Cases involving delayed surgical intervention illustrate how critical timely medical decision-making can be, and how significant the consequences are when providers fall short. For a full picture of what plaintiff attorneys across the country are winning at trial, visit Major Verdict's latest verdict news. If your family has been affected by a delayed diagnosis or surgical error, results like this one show what an experienced plaintiff attorney can achieve when the evidence is clear and the advocacy is strong. Find a medical malpractice attorney on Major Verdict with the trial record to back it up.FAQ Q: What is the Scafidi doctrine in New Jersey medical malpractice cases? A: The Scafidi doctrine, established by the New Jersey Supreme Court, applies in medical malpractice cases where a defendant's negligence worsened a pre-existing condition. Rather than holding the defendant fully liable for the entire harm, the doctrine allows a reduction in the verdict proportional to the role the patient's underlying condition played in the outcome. In this case, the jury's gross verdict was reduced by 20% under Scafidi. Q: What does Green v. Bittner allow families to recover in a New Jersey wrongful death case? A: Under the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Green v. Bittner, surviving family members may recover damages for the loss of a deceased loved one's guidance, advice, and companionship, not just financial support. This is particularly significant in cases where the decedent's income cannot be claimed, as it ensures the jury can still recognize the full human impact of the loss. In this case, the family recovered $600,000 on this basis. Q: Can a wrongful death case proceed even if the deceased was not working at the time of death? A: Yes. In New Jersey, wrongful death damages are not limited to lost income. Families can recover for the loss of services, guidance, and companionship under Green v. Bittner, regardless of the decedent's employment status at the time. In this case, the plaintiff's team made no lost income claim because the decedent had been furloughed, and still secured a judgment exceeding $1.2 million.

Commercial Trucking Crash

Iowa Supreme Court Affirms $26.1 Million Record Truck Accident Verdict in Underride Crash Case

The Iowa Supreme Court has unanimously upheld a $26,129,236.80 judgment in favor of Margaret McQuillen and her family, affirming what stands as the largest motor vehicle collision verdict in Iowa history. The April 3, 2026 ruling rejected the trucking company's appeal and confirmed the Linn County jury's findings from a two-week trial in June 2024. The case arose from a catastrophic underride collision near Anamosa, Iowa that left McQuillen, then 18 years old, with a severe traumatic brain injury and permanent neurological damage.Case at a Glance Verdict: $26,129,236.80 (reduced from $35,793,475 by 27% comparative fault) Case Type: Trucking Accident / Catastrophic Personal Injury Trial Court: Linn County District Court, Iowa - Judge Justin Lightfoot Appellate Court: Iowa Supreme Court, Case No. 24-1669 Iowa Supreme Court Decision: April 3, 2026 (unanimous, Justice David May) Plaintiff: Margaret McQuillen Defendants: West Side Transport, Inc.; Clifford Charles Takes (truck driver) Plaintiff Attorneys: Daniel Rodriguez, Joel Andreesen, Chantal Trujillo, Jessica Alcala, David Sherrill - Rodriguez & Associates; Matt Novak - Pickens Barnes and Abernathy, Cedar Rapids What Happened on Highway 151 Near Anamosa On the afternoon of March 19, 2020, heavy fog had settled near Anamosa, Iowa. Margaret McQuillen, then 18 and a student athlete at Anamosa High School, was driving southbound on Highway 151 when West Side Transport driver Clifford Takes attempted an unprotected left turn directly across oncoming traffic moving at 65 miles per hour. Takes was cited by the Iowa State Patrol for failing to yield and later pleaded guilty to that charge. The trucking company had no fog delay policy in place. McQuillen's car slid under the side of the trailer in what is known as an underride collision, one of the most deadly crash configurations involving large commercial trucks. When she arrived at the hospital, a physician declared her medically dead. She had no pulse and was not breathing. Medical staff resuscitated her. Her injuries included a severe traumatic brain injury, approximately 100 skull fractures, and lacerations. She underwent numerous surgeries, including a 16-hour facial reconstruction procedure, and weeks of rehabilitation at Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago. She faces permanent neurological difficulties. How the Jury Decided the Iowa Truck Accident Case After a two-week trial in Linn County in June 2024, the jury assigned 73% of the fault to West Side Transport and Clifford Takes, and 27% to McQuillen. The jury found total damages of $35,793,475. After applying Iowa's comparative fault reduction, Judge Justin Lightfoot entered judgment of $26,129,236.80, a record motor vehicle collision verdict in the state. The defense had offered a $3 million pre-trial settlement. That offer rose to $5 million one week into trial. The jury ultimately awarded more than seven times the mid-trial offer. Why Did the Iowa Supreme Court Affirm the $26.1 Million Iowa Truck Accident Verdict? West Side Transport appealed on three grounds: that plaintiff's counsel improperly referred to a witness as a "Snapchat expert" during closing arguments, that counsel argued negligence theories beyond those submitted to the jury, and that the trial court wrongly excluded a defense argument about the time value of money. The Iowa Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice David May, rejected all three arguments. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's handling of the closing argument issues and affirmed the judgment in full. "This decision affirms the judgment for Margaret McQuillen and her family after a devastating crash. We're grateful to have presented the case and stood with them through trial and appeal," said Joel Andreesen, Senior Partner at Rodriguez & Associates. What This Iowa Truck Accident Verdict Means for Plaintiff Attorneys An appellate affirmation of a record verdict carries more weight than the original jury award alone. It confirms the trial was well-conducted, the liability theory was sound, and the damages were defensible on appeal. All of those factors matter when evaluating the strength of a catastrophic trucking case going forward. There is also a personal dimension to this result worth noting. Joel Andreesen grew up in Anamosa, graduated from Anamosa High School, and is a childhood friend of Margaret's father, Matthew McQuillen. The two were roommates at the University of Iowa College of Law. Andreesen has spent his career at a Bakersfield, California firm, but was sworn into the Iowa State Bar in December 2024, bringing his record of trial results back to the community that shaped him. For Iowa plaintiff attorneys handling trucking and catastrophic injury cases, this verdict sets a documented benchmark for what Iowa juries will award in severe TBI cases involving clear truck driver negligence. FAQ Q: What is an underride truck accident and why are the injuries so severe? A: An underride collision occurs when a smaller vehicle slides under the side, rear, or front of a large commercial trailer. Because the trailer sits at a height that can shear off the roof of a passenger car, these crashes frequently produce catastrophic head and brain injuries or death. Federal regulations require underride guards on the rear of trailers, but side underride guards are not universally mandated, making side-impact underride crashes particularly dangerous for occupants of smaller vehicles. Q: How does comparative fault affect a truck accident verdict in Iowa? A: Iowa follows a modified comparative fault rule. If the plaintiff is found partially at fault, the damages award is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault. If the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault, they cannot recover at all. In this case, the jury found McQuillen 27% at fault and the defendants 73% at fault, reducing the total damages found of $35,793,475 to a final judgment of $26,129,236.80. Margaret McQuillen has since graduated from the University of Iowa with a degree in exercise science and is now working as a personal trainer. Verdicts like this one show what juries are prepared to award when the evidence is strong, the injuries are permanent, and the attorney is prepared for trial. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured in a truck accident, the trial record of your attorney matters. Find a plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict who has the results to back it up.

Premises Liability

$67.25 Million Florida Verdict After Teen Paralyzed at Okeechobee Mud Event

A Martin County jury has awarded $67,250,000 to a Wellington teenager who suffered a catastrophic spinal cord injury after jumping into an unmarked mudhole at a 2023 off-road mud event in Okeechobee County. The verdict, reached March 26, 2026, holds the property owner and event promoter accountable for failing to warn attendees of a concealed and dangerous condition on the premises.Case at a Glance Verdict: $67,250,000 Case Type: Premises Liability / Spinal Cord Injury Court: Martin County, Florida Verdict Date: March 26, 2026 Plaintiff: Justin Nesselhauf, Wellington, FL Defendants: Charles Edward and Cynthia Underhill; C&C Underhill; TGW Productions (Trucks Gone Wild) Plaintiff Attorneys: Michael Pike, Daniel Lustig, Robert Johnson - Pike & Lustig, LLPWhat Happened at Plant Bamboo Off-Road Park On February 18, 2023, Justin Nesselhauf was attending the "Muddy Valentine" event at Plant Bamboo Off-Road Park, a 600-acre working cattle ranch at 695 SW Martin Highway in Okeechobee. The annual event, produced by Trucks Gone Wild, draws thousands of off-road enthusiasts for several days of mud activities, trail riding, and open water areas. Nesselhauf had turned 18 just days before the incident. He jumped into a water and mudhole in an area where swimming and diving were permitted by event organizers. According to the lawsuit, no warning signs had been posted. The mudhole concealed a hidden danger beneath the surface. The impact shattered his cervical spine. Nesselhauf sustained fractures to his C3, C4, and C5 vertebrae and required emergency surgery. Friends pulled him from the water and performed CPR while waiting for Martin County Rescue to arrive. He was airlifted to St. Mary's Hospital. He was left with significant and permanent physical limitations.Why Did the Jury Side with the Plaintiff? The jury found the defendants negligent in the inspection, maintenance, and operation of the premises. Central to the plaintiff's case was the allegation that the unsafe condition of the mudhole area had existed long enough that the property owner and event promoter knew or should have known about it, yet took no action to warn attendees. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants "created the illusion that dangerous conditions are safe", a strong point plaintiff attorney Daniel Lustig pressed pointedly after the verdict. "This verdict sends a clear message: you don't get to cut corners on safety, create the illusion that dangerous conditions are safe, and then shift the blame when someone's life is shattered," Lustig said. "Accountability won at the Martin County Courthouse." Expert testimony from Dr. Craig Lichtblau helped establish the scope of Nesselhauf's long-term medical needs and the associated lifetime costs, a critical component in justifying the size of the award.Who Represented Justin Nesselhauf? The case was handled by Pike & Lustig, LLP, a South Florida boutique firm. Managing Partner Michael Pike, Partner Daniel Lustig, and Partner Robert Johnson tried the case together over years of hard-fought litigation. For Pike, the result was historic. He called it the largest verdict of his 25-year litigation career. "After years of hard-fought litigation, this verdict is the product of a unified team effort," Pike said. Johnson emphasized what the award means practically for his client: "No verdict can restore what was taken from our client, but this result ensures he has the resources he needs for lifelong care, dignity, and independence. We're grateful the jury carefully considered the evidence and delivered justice for him and his family."What This Verdict Means for Recreational Event Venues Florida attracts millions of visitors annually to off-road parks, mud events, and outdoor recreation venues. Operators of these events, whether property owners, promoters, or production companies, carry a legal duty to maintain reasonably safe conditions for attendees and to warn of known hazards. This case makes clear that the duty to warn does not disappear because an activity is inherently physical or the venue is rustic. A mudhole in a swimming-permitted area without warning signage is not an accepted risk, it is a documented failure. For plaintiff attorneys tracking premises liability verdicts in Florida, this outcome demonstrates that juries will hold event promoters and property owners jointly accountable when the evidence shows both knew of dangerous conditions and did nothing. If you or a family member suffered a serious injury at an off-road event, outdoor festival, or recreational venue, verdicts like this one show what juries are willing to award when the evidence is strong and the attorneys are prepared. Find a plaintiff attorney on Major Verdict who has the trial record to back it up. Plaintiff attorneys with results worth showcasing, create your free profile on Major Verdict and let your record speak for itself.FAQ Q: What is premises liability and how does it apply to an off-road event? A: Premises liability is a legal theory that holds property owners and operators responsible for injuries caused by unsafe conditions on their property. In Florida, this duty extends to event venues and temporary recreational operations. When an operator permits swimming or diving in an area and fails to post warnings about hidden hazards, they can be held liable if someone is injured as a result. Q: What does a C3–C5 spinal cord injury mean for a young person's life? A: Fractures to the C3, C4, and C5 vertebrae, located in the upper cervical spine, can result in partial or complete paralysis, loss of motor function, and reduced ability to breathe independently. The effects are often permanent, requiring lifelong medical care, rehabilitation, and assistive technology. This is why long-term cost testimony from medical experts like Dr. Craig Lichtblau plays such a central role in catastrophic injury trials. Q: Can multiple defendants be held liable in a premises liability case? A: Yes. In Florida, a jury can apportion fault among multiple parties. Here, both the property owner (C&C Underhill) and the event promoter (Trucks Gone Wild) were named defendants. When a property is leased or licensed to an event operator, both the owner and the operator can face liability if their combined failures contributed to an unsafe condition.

Wrongful Death

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

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

Auto Accident

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

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

Product Liability

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

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

Toxic Tort

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

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

Commercial Trucking Crash

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

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

DUI/DWI Injury Accident

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

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

Premises Liability

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

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

Slip and Fall

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

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

Slip and Fall

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

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

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