Skip to main content

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

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

Personal Injury Verdict and Settlement News

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

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.

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.

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