Latest Personal Injury Verdict News

$5.4 Million Los Angeles Dog Bite Verdict Holds City and Rescue Group Liable for Shelter Attack

A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury has awarded $5.4 million to a woman who was mauled by a dog at a city animal shelter after neither the shelter nor the rescue group she worked for disclosed the animal's violent history. The verdict adds to a growing pattern of multi-million-dollar payouts tied to Los Angeles animal shelters failing to warn the public about dangerous dogs.What Happened at the East Valley Animal Shelter On September 23, 2020, Genice Horta, then working for a rescue group called HIT Living Foundation, arrived at the East Valley Animal Shelter in Los Angeles to transport a dog to Arizona. The dog, a one-year-old Belgian Malinois named Maximus, had been placed on the city's New Hope list, which is accessible to registered nonprofit rescues. A shelter employee told Horta that Maximus had "kennel anxiety." She offered the dog a treat containing trazodone, a common anxiety medication for dogs. Maximus took the treat, then lunged and latched onto Horta's right hand and arm. Horta had no prior experience working with shelter dogs, according to the city's attorneys. She alleged that the shelter employee who brought Maximus to her car failed to control the dog and never told her Maximus could be dangerous.A Dog Bite History the Los Angeles Shelter Never Disclosed What Horta did not know, and what she says no one told her, was that Maximus had already sent two people to the hospital. According to a brief filed by Horta's attorneys, Maximus' previous owners surrendered him to the shelter after he bit their 15-year-old daughter on the foot, leaving deep puncture wounds that required hospital treatment. Several weeks later, Maximus bit a shelter employee severely enough in the abdomen to send that employee to the emergency room. Shelter staff had documented Maximus "viciously biting and snapping at people walking past his enclosure." One employee's notes included the warning: "USE EXTREME CAUTION!!!" Despite all of this, neither the shelter nor HIT Living Foundation disclosed the bite history to Horta before she was sent to handle the dog.The Los Angeles Dog Bite Verdict and Liability Split After a 10-day trial, the jury decided that the City of Los Angeles was 62.5% liable, HIT Living Foundation was 25% liable, and Horta herself was 12.5% liable for medical expenses and pain and suffering. Horta filed her lawsuit in 2022. According to the brief filed by her attorneys, she underwent six surgeries to repair the bones and nerves in her right arm and was left with permanent damage. Attorney Ivan Puchalt, one of Horta's lawyers, said in a statement that the case "revealed a series of serious and preventable mistakes." Those mistakes, Puchalt said, involved failures in warning about Maximus' bite history and in controlling a dangerous dog before placing him with a handler. Deputy City Attorney Joshua Quinones argued in his closing that Maximus had already been sold to HIT Living Foundation when the attack occurred. He also pushed back on claims that the dog should have been euthanized. "L.A. animal shelters are not 'death row in Mississippi at midnight,'" Quinones said. "This is a rescue operation." A spokesperson for the L.A. City Attorney's Office did not respond to requests for comment. HIT Living Foundation also did not respond.Third Multi-Million Payout Over Undisclosed Dog Bite Histories This Los Angeles dog bite verdict is the third multi-million-dollar payout in recent years involving allegations that city animal shelters failed to tell potential adopters or handlers that a dog had bitten and seriously injured someone, as required by California state law. In November, the city reached a $3.25 million settlement with Kristin Wright, who was severely injured by a pit bull she adopted from the South LA shelter. Wright said the shelter never told her the dog had bitten his previous owner's elderly mother in the face. In response to the Wright case, LA Animal Services formally enacted a bite and behavioral disclosure policy last November. Agnes Sibal-von Debschitz, communications director for LA Animal Services, said that under the policy, "staff must provide a bite and behavioral disclosure to any person receiving an animal with a prior bite history." Before that, in 2023, a jury awarded $6.8 million to shelter volunteer Kelly Kaneko, who was mauled by a German shepherd mix at an LA city shelter after intake records contained no information about the dog's prior aggressive behavior.What This Verdict Signals for Animal Shelter Liability Horta's attorneys argued that Maximus was so dangerous he should have been euthanized. The city disputed that characterization, but the jury's verdict sends a clear message: shelters and rescue organizations can face significant financial consequences when they fail to disclose a dog's bite history. For plaintiff attorneys handling dog bite cases in California, this verdict reinforces that institutional defendants, including municipal shelters and rescue nonprofits, can be held jointly liable when they fail to follow state-mandated disclosure requirements. Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured, find a plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict who has the trial record to back it up.

$750K Maine Medical Malpractice Verdict After Surgeon Leaves Gap in Patient's Femur

A nine-person jury in Ellsworth, Maine awarded $750,000 in damages to a 71-year-old woman on Friday after finding that her orthopedic surgeon and hospital provided negligent medical care during hip replacement surgery. The Maine medical malpractice verdict came after three days of witness testimony at Hancock County Superior Court and less than four hours of jury deliberation.What Happened to Mary Shea Mary Shea, a resident of Milbridge, Maine, sued orthopedic surgeon Peter Copithorne and Northern Light Maine Coast Hospital over right hip replacement surgeries performed in 2019. According to the lawsuit, Shea was 64 at the time and had previously undergone a successful left hip replacement in 2013 with no significant complications. Her right hip replacement, performed in February 2019, left a routine complication that should have been identified and repaired quickly. During a follow-up visit after surgery, Copithorne failed to read Shea's correct post-operative X-ray. He did not review the correct imaging until May 24, 2019, more than two months after the X-rays were taken on March 20, 2019. According to court testimony, Copithorne recorded in Shea's medical documentation that he had reviewed her March 20 X-rays with her. He later amended the note to reflect that he had read the wrong film. The original note was made with auto-generated language, a common practice for physicians.A Second Surgery Made Things Worse Because of the delayed diagnosis, Shea required a much more invasive procedure called an osteotomy to address the complication. During that second surgery, which the lawsuit said Copithorne had only performed alone once before, he sawed a centimeter-long gap in Shea's femur. He unsuccessfully attempted to close the opening with wire, according to the lawsuit. The femur is essential for mobility, and Shea's injuries from this procedure left her with permanent physical impairment. Two physicians testified at trial that the osteotomy would not have been necessary had Copithorne read Shea's X-rays on the day they were taken. During the two months between her March 20 imaging and her May 24 follow-up appointment, the muscles and tendons around Shea's femur atrophied, causing permanent weakness and mobility issues, according to plaintiff attorney Elizabeth Kayatta.Years of Treatment and $291,000 in Medical Bills After leaving Copithorne's care, Shea sought treatment from a Portland surgeon to fix her femur and undergo additional revision surgery. From there, she began years of injections, medication regimens, physical therapies, and various procedures to manage her pain, weakness, and mobility problems, according to testimony from Victoria Brander, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist at Northwestern Medicine who served as an expert witness. Shea's right hip replacement treatment resulted in nearly $300,000 in medical bills, approximately $250,000 more than what her successful left hip replacement cost. Once an avid hiker and kayaker, Shea has faced significant physical limitations, along with mental health challenges, in the years since her surgeries with Copithorne.The Jury's Maine Medical Malpractice Verdict and Defense Arguments The Ellsworth jury found that both Copithorne and Northern Light Maine Coast Hospital provided negligent medical care that harmed Shea. Three of the nine jurors did not concur with the verdict. Maine civil suits do not require a unanimous jury. Defense attorney Douglas Morgan acknowledged that Copithorne's failure to read the correct X-ray was negligent but argued that this did not directly cause Shea's medical complications. Morgan contended that Shea would have needed the osteotomy regardless of when the X-ray was read. The jury disagreed with that position. "Though we are disappointed with the verdict in this matter, we respect the jury's decision," Morgan said. "More importantly, we wish Mary Shea the best and continued good health moving forward." Kayatta framed the verdict as a moment of accountability. "When doctors make medical errors, they need to be held accountable for those errors in a meaningful way," she told the Bangor Daily News. According to the lawsuit, Copithorne is the second-highest paid physician at Northern Light. ProPublica reported he earned $712,019 for the fiscal year ending in September 2024.Why Verdicts Like This Matter Medical malpractice verdicts in Maine provide critical public insight into how juries evaluate surgical errors, hospital accountability, and patient outcomes. For anyone researching what medical malpractice cases in Maine are worth at trial, cases like Shea's offer real data from real courtrooms. Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself. If you or someone you love has been affected by a medical error, you can find a plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict with a proven trial record in your state.

$18.8 Million Monterey County Pedestrian Verdict Holds California Accountable for State Parks Crash

A Monterey County jury awarded $18.8 million to a former Rhode Island city councilmember who was struck by a vehicle in a marked crosswalk at Point Lobos State Natural Reserve in 2023. The Monterey County pedestrian verdict against the State of California sends a clear signal about government accountability when public safety fails inside state parks.How the Point Lobos Crash Happened On June 10, 2023, Helen Anthony, then a sitting member of the Providence, Rhode Island City Council, was visiting Point Lobos State Natural Reserve in Monterey County. While walking across a pedestrian crosswalk in broad daylight, she was struck by a vehicle driven by a California State Parks volunteer. The injuries were catastrophic. According to medical testimony presented at trial, Anthony suffered 20 broken ribs and a traumatic brain injury that will permanently affect her quality of life.The State's Defense and a $50,000 Settlement Offer The State of California argued that it did not bear responsibility for Anthony's injuries because the driver was a volunteer for Point Lobos State Natural Reserve, not a state employee. Anthony's legal team pushed back on that defense. During trial, her attorneys presented evidence that the state had previously offered Anthony just $50,000 to settle the case. The jury ultimately rejected the state's position and returned a verdict nearly 376 times that settlement offer. "This verdict makes clear that the State of California cannot escape responsibility by simply labeling someone a volunteer," said attorney Roger Dreyer, who represents Anthony. Dreyer added that the jury found the state failed to properly train and supervise the volunteer driver, and that the failure resulted in lasting consequences.A Career in Public Service Cut Short The Monterey County pedestrian verdict reflects more than a dollar figure. It captures the full scope of what Anthony lost. Anthony had served on the Providence City Council for six years, representing Ward 2 and chairing the council's Finance Committee. On August 1, 2025, she resigned from office to focus on her recovery. "I'm proud to have served Ward 2 and the City of Providence," Anthony wrote in her resignation letter. She noted that the demands of her council role were hindering her ability to heal from the 2023 crash. For a public servant who spent years advocating for schools, city services, and local government, the decision to step down underscores the severity of injuries that a traumatic brain injury and 20 broken ribs impose on daily life.What This Monterey County Pedestrian Verdict Means for Government Accountability This $18.8 million jury award raises questions about how the State of California trains and supervises volunteers who operate vehicles inside state parks. The defense theory that volunteer status shields the state from liability did not persuade the jury. The case also highlights pedestrian safety at California's state parks and natural reserves. Anthony was in a marked crosswalk in broad daylight when she was hit. Visitors to state parks expect a baseline level of safety, and this verdict suggests juries are willing to hold the state accountable when that expectation is not met. A spokesperson for California State Parks could not be reached for comment, according to the East Bay Times.Tracking Major Verdicts Across California and All 50 States Jury awards like the $18.8 million Monterey County pedestrian verdict shape how attorneys prepare cases, how insurers evaluate risk, and how the public understands what serious injury claims are worth at trial. Browsing the latest verdict news on Major Verdict gives both lawyers and the public access to significant outcomes as they happen. 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.

$2.7M Federal Jury Verdict Against Target Corp in Colorado Premises Liability Case

A federal jury in Denver awarded $2,698,550 to a customer who tripped over a fallen curbside pickup sign at a Littleton, Colorado Target store a hazard that evidence showed the retail giant knew about for months and failed to fix. The verdict, returned on November 21, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Case No. 1:23-cv-02828-DDD-STV), found Target Corp 100% responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. The judgment became final after Target Corp did not appeal by the February 19, 2026 deadline.What Happened at Target Store #1776 in Littleton The incident occurred on October 9, 2021, at Target Store #1776, located at 9390 W. Cross Drive in Littleton, Colorado. A temporary curbside pickup sign had blown over earlier that day. Evidence presented at trial showed the sign was visually camouflaged against the surrounding pavement which had been painted in Target's own branding colors making it difficult to see underfoot. That design detail mattered. So did what happened after the sign fell.Target Knew the Signs Were a Problem and Did Nothing The jury heard evidence that Target Corp had been aware for months that these curbside pickup signs were falling over prior to this incident. Video evidence presented at trial showed that multiple Target employees walked near the fallen sign before the customer was hurt. Despite those opportunities, no one removed it, marked it, or cordoned off the area. The plaintiff subsequently tripped over the sign and fell. The jury's finding of 100% liability against Target reflects the conclusion that this was not a sudden, unforeseeable accident. The hazard was known. The risk was documented. And nothing was done.Severe and Permanent Injuries The fall caused the plaintiff to suffer severe nerve damage to the right arm and hand. Medical testimony established that the injuries resulted in permanent impairment and chronic pain, with lasting functional limitations affecting daily life. The jury's award of $2,698,550 covers medical expenses, pain and suffering, and the long-term consequences of those permanent injuries.The Legal Team The plaintiff was represented by Vernon L. Ready of Ready Law, a Colorado personal injury firm based in Denver. The verdict places this case among the more significant premises liability outcomes in the Denver metropolitan area in recent years, according to the press release issued by Ready Law.What This Verdict Means for Retail Premises Liability Cases This case carries meaningful signals for plaintiff attorneys handling retail injury claims in Colorado. The combination of documented prior notice, identifiable corporate branding contributing to the hazard, and video evidence of employees passing the danger point created a strong liability picture. The jury's 100% fault allocation against a major national retailer in federal court underscores that corporations cannot escape responsibility for known, unaddressed hazards simply because the setting is a routine retail environment. For attorneys tracking premises liability verdicts in Colorado, cases like this one illustrate what a well-developed "notice plus failure to act" theory can produce at trial. Plaintiff attorneys can explore Colorado verdict data and connect with experienced trial lawyers at Major Verdict.Find a Colorado Personal Injury Lawyer If you or someone you know has been injured on another person's or business's property in Colorado, you have the right to seek compensation. Colorado's Premises Liability Act imposes specific duties on property owners and occupiers to protect lawful visitors from known hazards. This verdict shows what can happen when those duties are ignored. To find a plaintiff personal injury attorney with a proven trial record in Colorado, visit the Major Verdict member directory a public resource connecting injured people with experienced lawyers across all 50 states. You can also explore Colorado personal injury public resources for more context on how cases like this are handled in your state. Attorneys: if you try cases like this and want your results in front of the public and your peers, join Major Verdict the only platform where plaintiff lawyers publicly display detailed trial outcomes.

$2.25M Virginia Verdict in Tractor-Trailer Crash That Killed 17-Year-Old Keon Couch

A Newport News jury awarded $2.25 million Thursday to the family of a Virginia teenager killed after a commercial truck driver illegally parked his rig in a live travel lane and walked into a fast food restaurant. The verdict caps a six-day trial that put trucking company liability, driver negligence, and causation squarely before a Virginia jury.What Happened on Jefferson Avenue In March 2023, USA Truck driver Leonard Couplin parked his tractor-trailer in the right lane of Jefferson Avenue in Newport News, Virginia, and left the vehicle unattended to enter a nearby restaurant. Keon Couch, 17, was a passenger in a car driven by Carlos Palmer, then 16. As Palmer's vehicle approached the stopped big rig, it struck two other cars before colliding with the parked tractor-trailer. That final collision killed Couch. USA Truck and Couplin did not contest the parking violation. Their defense centered entirely on causation arguing that Palmer's driving, not the unattended truck, was the actual cause of the wreck.The Defense Argument: Palmer's Driving Was the Sole Cause Defense attorney Ashley Winsky of Moran Reeves Conn told jurors that the tractor-trailer was visible and had its hazard lights flashing immediately before the crash. She argued that Palmer was speeding, tailgating, and made a blind lane change that set the collision in motion. "Our argument is that the sole proximate cause of this accident was Carlos Palmer's reckless driving," Winsky told the jury. "He didn't look. He just made a blind lane change when his whole view was blocked."The Plaintiff's Case: Parking a Big Rig in a Live Lane Created a Fatal Hazard Joseph Fried of Fried Goldberg, representing Couch's family, argued that Couplin violated his training and multiple trucking rules by stopping in the roadway and abandoning the vehicle. He acknowledged that Palmer's car struck other vehicles first -- but emphasized that it was the collision with the parked tractor-trailer that proved fatal. "Part of our problem with the parking out there is because it adds so much more risk," Fried told jurors. "It was the configuration of that trailer. If this had been almost anything else the vehicle collided with, we wouldn't be here today." Fried requested between approximately $34 million and $38 million in compensatory damages, plus a finding that punitive damages were warranted.The Verdict: $2.25 Million, No Punitives Jurors sided with the plaintiff on liability, awarding $2.25 million in total damages: $950,000 to each of Couch's two siblings $350,000 to Couch's mother The jury declined to award punitive damages. In a post-verdict statement to CVN, Fried said: "I am extremely proud of the case that we tried, even though the verdict was less than we hoped to achieve. It was a very hard fought case on both liability and damages." Fried noted that a challenging family dynamic affected the damages phase, particularly the award to Couch's mother. "The challenge for me was to explain that, despite these facts, the relationship was a special one and warranted a substantial verdict under Virginia law," he wrote. Winsky, for her part, told CVN the jury "returned a fair verdict that was consistent with our valuation of the case." She added that the defense took the case to trial because it viewed the plaintiff's financial demand as excessive, and cited concerns about nuclear verdicts in the transportation industry.What This Verdict Signals for Trucking Liability Cases This case illustrates one of the more common battlegrounds in commercial trucking litigation: a defendant who concedes a safety violation but disputes whether that violation actually caused the harm. Couplin's improper parking was never in dispute. USA Truck's entire defense rested on the argument that an intervening act -- Palmer's driving -- broke the chain of causation. Virginia juries, like most, weigh proximate cause carefully. Here, they found the parked tractor-trailer bore enough responsibility to hold the defendants liable, even without awarding punitive damages. For plaintiff attorneys handling trucking cases, this outcome underscores the importance of framing causation arguments around the specific danger created by the defendant's conduct -- not just the sequence of events leading to impact. Attorneys who have tried trucking and wrongful death cases can showcase their results on Major Verdict, where plaintiff lawyers build public profiles featuring detailed trial outcomes and notable settlements. The platform gives the plaintiff bar a dedicated space to establish credibility and connect with potential clients researching attorneys by verdict history.About the Case Case: Etheridge v. USA Truck, LLC, et al., CL2304235H-00 Court: Virginia 7th Circuit State Court, Newport News Verdict date: February 25, 2026 Verdict: $2.25 million (compensatory); no punitive damages Plaintiff counsel: Joseph Fried, Fried Goldberg Families who have lost someone in a commercial truck crash can learn about the legal process through Virginia's personal injury resources at Major Verdict, or find a plaintiff attorney with a proven trial record in their state.

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

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

Tarrant County Jury Awards $1.575 Million in Contested Commercial Vehicle Crash Trial

A Tarrant County jury returned a $1.575 million verdict in a disputed commercial vehicle collision case, according to a press release announcing the result. The case proceeded to trial after liability was contested. Jurors ultimately awarded $1,575,000 in damages following presentation of the evidence. The plaintiff was represented by Angel Reyes & Associates, as stated in the release. The matter involved a commercial vehicle crash, and the verdict reflects the jury’s resolution of the disputed issues presented during trial. No additional details regarding the underlying facts of the collision or the breakdown of damages were provided.

Plaintiff Verdict Against Uber Highlights Momentum as Lyft Cases Move to MDL

A federal jury’s $8.5 million verdict against Uber is being viewed by plaintiff-side attorneys as a pivotal development in rideshare sexual assault litigation, as related lawsuits against Lyft are now moving forward under a newly formed multidistrict litigation in California. The verdict came in the first bellwether trial within Uber’s passenger sexual assault litigation, where a jury awarded damages to plaintiff Jaylynn Dean following allegations that she was sexually assaulted by her driver. Dean’s legal team, led by Sarah R. London of Girard Sharp, Alexandra Walsh of Anapol Weiss, and Deborah Chang of Chang Klein, argued that Uber failed to adequately protect riders or warn them about known risks associated with sexual assault on its platform. Jurors ultimately found Uber liable under an apparent agency theory, concluding that the driver acted as the company’s representative from the rider’s perspective, despite Uber’s classification of drivers as independent contractors. While the jury rejected claims related to negligence and product design, legal observers noted that the apparent agency finding cuts through a defense frequently relied upon by rideshare companies. The same day the verdict was returned, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the consolidation of 17 federal sexual assault lawsuits against Lyft into a single proceeding in the Northern District of California. The panel determined that the cases involve shared factual questions centered on passenger safety and Lyft’s response to reports of sexual misconduct. According to the consolidation order, plaintiffs allege Lyft was aware of the prevalence of sexual assault involving its drivers but failed to take sufficient preventative action. Those allegations include inadequate driver screening and supervision, failures to respond appropriately to complaints, and the absence of standardized safety measures or app-based protections. The Lyft litigation has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin in San Francisco. The panel selected the venue based on the number of pending cases already filed in the district and Lyft’s corporate presence there. Lyft opposed consolidation, pointing to related proceedings in state court, but the panel concluded that federal coordination was necessary to prevent fragmented litigation across multiple jurisdictions. The Uber verdict has also drawn attention from plaintiff-side practitioners nationwide. Commentators noted that early bellwether results often shape the trajectory of mass tort litigation, and a plaintiff win at this stage may strengthen leverage for future cases. Attorneys have emphasized that apparent agency theories focus on how companies present themselves to the public, rather than how they structure contractual relationships behind the scenes. As Uber prepares to appeal and Lyft cases move forward in coordinated federal proceedings, plaintiff attorneys are closely watching how courts continue to evaluate corporate accountability and passenger safety obligations in the rideshare industry.

$36.4 Million Bronx Verdict After Worker Suffers Traumatic Brain Injury at Foodtown Supermarket

A Bronx County jury has awarded $36,398,000 to a worker who suffered a traumatic brain injury and serious orthopedic injuries after slipping on cooking oil applied to a makeshift ramp inside a Parkchester supermarket. The verdict, returned February 4, 2026 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, is the largest premises-accident personal injury verdict in the Bronx in more than seven years, and the largest personal injury verdict on record in New York State for an individual undocumented immigrant worker. Case at a Glance Verdict: $36,398,000 Case Type: Premises Liability / Traumatic Brain Injury Court: Supreme Court of New York, Bronx County Judge: Hon. Wilma Guzman Verdict Date: February 4, 2026 Case No.: 31210/2017E Plaintiff: Honorio Rosario-Silverio Defendants: PPC Commercial, LLC; 1489 Food Corp. d/b/a Foodtown Supermarket (Parkchester, Bronx) Plaintiff Attorneys: Mitchell Proner and Daisy Koch, Proner & Proner (Manhattan)What Happened in the Foodtown Basement On October 14, 2017, Honorio Rosario-Silverio was working at a Foodtown supermarket in the Parkchester section of the Bronx. His employer, a non-party to the lawsuit, had been hired to install a commercial rack refrigeration system in the store's basement. To move the heavy equipment downstairs, workers placed a metal plate over the basement stairway to create a makeshift ramp. According to evidence presented at trial, cooking oil was then applied to the surface of the ramp so the refrigeration components would slide down more easily. The plaintiff contended the oil was supplied at the direction of the supermarket owner to speed up the work. While positioned at the top of the ramp to guide the equipment, Rosario-Silverio slipped. The oil that had coated the ramp had also worked its way onto his shoes. He fell down the incline. At Jacobi Hospital, he was treated and discharged with four stitches to his forearm. It appeared, initially, to be a minor injury. It was not.A "Minor Injury" That Changed Everything Over time, Rosario-Silverio was diagnosed with significant shoulder and cervical spine injuries requiring surgery. He was also diagnosed with a mild traumatic brain injury. The plaintiff's team presented advanced neurological evidence to establish the brain injury objectively. A brain-injury expert testified that DTI MRI imaging and NeuroQuant volumetric analysis, technologies that measure structural changes in brain tissue, confirmed trauma and placed Rosario-Silverio at increased risk for early dementia. A neuroradiologist corroborated those findings. The treating cervical spine and shoulder surgeons each testified that the surgeries performed were caused by the 2017 fall, not a separate accident in 2020 that the defense attempted to use to shift blame. The jury's damages award reflected the full scope of the injury: $5,000,000 - past pain and suffering $20,000,000 - future pain and suffering $10,000,000 - future medical expenses $468,000 - past lost earnings $930,000 - future lost earningsHow the Defense Fought and Why the Jury Disagreed The defense contested nearly every element of the case. On liability, they argued the supermarket owner was not present during the work and that all means and methods were controlled solely by Rosario-Silverio's employer. They also claimed he chose to walk up the ramp rather than use the adjacent staircase, making his own fall the product of his own decision. On damages, the defense presented a neurologist and neuroradiologist who testified that Rosario-Silverio had sustained no brain or neck injury and was capable of returning to work. They pointed to a 2020 accident as the true source of his orthopedic complaints and argued the plaintiff was seeking double recovery. Throughout the trial, the defense also attacked Rosario-Silverio's credibility directly, emphasizing that he was undocumented, paid off the books, and had not fully reported his earnings for tax purposes. The jury rejected those arguments in full. "This verdict reflects the jury's recognition that serious brain and orthopedic injuries are real and life-altering, even when defendants try to dismiss them as minor, unrelated, or the product of a later incident," said Mitchell Proner, trial counsel for the plaintiff. "The defense highlighted his immigration status, his off-the-books earnings, and a subsequent accident, but the evidence showed that what happened in that supermarket basement permanently changed Mr. Rosario-Silverio's life."Why This Verdict Matters This result is significant on two levels. First, the medical evidence strategy. The plaintiff's team used DTI MRI imaging and NeuroQuant analysis, tools not yet routine in courtrooms, to make an invisible injury visible to a jury. When the initial ER records showed only a forearm laceration, the defense had a compelling narrative. Plaintiff counsel dismantled it with objective imaging that the defense's own experts could not credibly refute. Second, the plaintiff's background. Defendants repeatedly raised Rosario-Silverio's undocumented status and off-the-books employment as reasons to discount his claims. The Bronx jury declined to do so. The result sets a clear record: immigration status does not diminish the value of a human life or the accountability of a property owner under New York premises liability law. For plaintiff attorneys handling traumatic brain injury or premises liability cases in New York, this verdict is a study in how to overcome a defense built on credibility attacks, competing causation theories, and a thin initial injury record. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys publicly document their trial results and settlements, building a searchable record of what juries actually award. Browse the latest verdict news or find a plaintiff attorney in New York with 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 a mild traumatic brain injury and how do attorneys prove it in court? A: A mild traumatic brain injury, or mild TBI, refers to a brain injury that may not appear on standard imaging like a CT scan or conventional MRI but causes real, lasting neurological changes. In court, plaintiff attorneys increasingly rely on advanced imaging tools such as DTI MRI, which maps the structural integrity of white matter tracts in the brain, and NeuroQuant volumetric analysis, which compares brain structure against age-matched norms. In this case, those tools provided objective evidence of brain damage that overcame the defense's claim that Rosario-Silverio had sustained no neurological injury. Q: Can an undocumented worker sue for personal injury in New York? A: Yes. Under New York law, immigration status does not bar a person from bringing a personal injury claim or recovering damages. Undocumented workers are entitled to the same premises liability protections as any other person injured on someone else's property. Lost earnings claims can be more complex, but juries are not permitted to reduce awards based on a plaintiff's immigration status alone. This verdict reinforces that principle at a historic scale. Q: What is premises liability and when does it apply to a workplace accident? A: Premises liability holds property owners responsible for maintaining safe conditions on their property for people who are lawfully present. Even when a worker is employed by a contractor rather than the property owner, the owner can be held liable if an unsafe condition on the property, such as an oil-coated makeshift ramp, caused the injury. In this case, the jury found PPC Commercial and Foodtown Supermarket liable despite their argument that the plaintiff's employer controlled all means and methods of the work.

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

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

Hays County Jury Awards $46M After Oilfield Worker Run Over at Devon Energy Site

Jurors placed 90% of fault on driver Gerald Walker and 10% on John Dotson Trucking, citing reckless conduct that killed 34-year-old Andrew West during a 2019 aggregate delivery southeast of San Antonio. A Hays County jury has awarded $46 million to the parents of Andrew West, a 34-year-old oilfield worker who was run over and killed at a Devon Energy well site in DeWitt County. Trial evidence showed truck driver Gerald Walker accelerated sharply without confirming West’s location, striking him with the rear of his trailer and leaving the scene until Colorado Materials supervisors ordered him back. Jurors found Walker negligent and determined John Dotson Trucking shared liability because Walker was operating under its control for Colorado Materials at the time. The verdict includes $20 million for the pain and mental anguish West suffered before he died, plus $13 million each to his parents for loss of companionship and mental anguish. Walker was assigned 90% of the responsibility, with 10% on his employer. “This verdict reflects the jury’s understanding that when someone’s reckless conduct takes a life, there must be accountability,” plaintiff’s attorney Rusty Hardin said. West’s last words “Tell my mom I love her. Tell my dad I love him” were relayed to the jury to underscore the human loss.

Jury Awards $373,922 in Virginia Car Accident Verdict After Henrico County Sideswipe Collision

A Henrico County jury awarded $373,922 to the plaintiff in Stuart v. Presley on January 21, 2026, after a sideswipe collision that the defense described as minor and that caused minimal visible property damage. The Virginia car accident verdict came after the insurance carrier, Safeco, offered just $20,000 to settle the case, making the jury's award nearly 19 times the pre-trial offer. The case was tried before Judge Rondelle D. Herman in Henrico County Circuit Court. Plaintiff attorneys Sharif Gray, Gray Broughton, and Zachary Grubaugh of Gray Broughton Injury Law in Richmond represented the injured party.How the Sideswipe Collision Led to Surgery The plaintiff was involved in a sideswipe collision in Henrico County that produced minimal property damage. Despite the low-impact appearance of the crash, the plaintiff sustained a torn rotator cuff that required surgical intervention. The defense admitted liability just hours before trial, shifting the entire dispute to damages. The central question for the jury became whether the collision actually caused the plaintiff's shoulder injury or whether the condition existed before the crash.The Defense Strategy: Pre-Existing Injury and Treatment Gap The defense built its case around two arguments. First, a defense orthopedic expert testified that the plaintiff's torn rotator cuff was pre-existing. The expert pointed to the fact that the plaintiff had undergone rotator cuff surgery on his other shoulder just over a year before the collision. Second, the defense highlighted a nine-month gap in treatment between the collision and when the plaintiff sought care for the injury at issue. The defense argued this gap undermined the claim that the crash caused the rotator cuff tear. These are common defense tactics in low-property-damage cases. Insurance carriers frequently rely on prior medical history and treatment gaps to minimize the value of a claim or deny causation altogether.Why the Jury Rejected a $20,000 Offer and Returned $373,922 Safeco's highest settlement offer before trial was $20,000. The case proceeded to a one-day jury trial, and the jury returned a verdict of $373,922 for the plaintiff. The gap between the carrier's offer and the jury's award is striking. It suggests that the jury found the plaintiff's testimony and evidence about the injury more credible than the defense's pre-existing condition argument. It also reflects what plaintiff attorneys across the country see regularly: carriers undervaluing claims involving low property damage, only to face significantly larger verdicts at trial.What This Virginia Car Accident Verdict Signals for Plaintiff Attorneys The Stuart v. Presley result is a useful data point for attorneys handling cases where the defense leans on minimal property damage to suppress settlement value. Several aspects of this case stand out for practitioners. The defense conceded liability on the eve of trial, a move that can sometimes work in the defense's favor by focusing the jury solely on damages. Here, that strategy did not pay off. The jury awarded nearly 19 times what Safeco had offered. The nine-month treatment gap and prior shoulder surgery on the opposite side gave the defense real ammunition, yet the jury still returned a six-figure verdict. This outcome suggests that when the surgical evidence supports causation, juries can see past treatment gaps and prior injury history. For plaintiff attorneys who handle disputed-causation cases, this verdict from Henrico County Circuit Court sends a clear message. Taking a case to trial can produce results that far exceed what the carrier puts on the table. Browse the latest verdict news on Major Verdict to track outcomes like this one. Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself. If you or someone you know has been injured in a car accident, find a plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict with a proven trial record in your state.

$6.4 Million Missouri Verdict for Firefighter Injured by Ambulance Company's Gurney

A Jackson County jury awarded $6.4 million to a Missouri firefighter and his wife after finding an ambulance company's gurney directly caused a series of devastating injuries including a brain condition that took three weeks to surface and became the central battleground of the trial. The verdict in Montgomery v. Medevac Medical Response, Inc. was returned January 14, 2026, in Jackson County Circuit Court at Independence, before Judge Kenneth Garrett III. The defendant never offered a single penny to settle.What Happened on January 11, 2017 Buddy Montgomery was a firefighter responding to a call for an unresponsive person in an Independence apartment parking lot. Defendant AMR, operating as Medevac Medical Response, Inc., responded to the same call with ambulance services and provided the gurney used to transport the patient. As Montgomery and a fellow firefighter lifted the patient onto the gurney, it shifted. Montgomery pulled up on the patient to prevent him from falling to the ground. That split-second reaction caused the injuries that would alter the course of his life. Montgomery suffered a SLAP tear to his right shoulder and a herniated disc at C6-C7, both of which required multiple surgeries. Three weeks after the incident, he developed hydrocephalus a serious neurological condition caused by a blockage from a congenital colloid cyst in his brain.The Fight Over Causation The hydrocephalus diagnosis became the defining issue in the case. The defense argued the timing was coincidental that a pre-existing congenital cyst, not the gurney incident, triggered the condition. The plaintiff's team countered that the physical trauma from the incident caused the blockage to manifest. Lead attorney Brett Burmeister of Burmeister Gilmore in Blue Springs credited the treating neurosurgeon with turning the tide on that issue. "Persuading jurors of the causal connection between the incident and our client's hydrocephalus brain injury, which did not manifest until 20 days later, presented the greatest challenge," Burmeister said. "The treating neurosurgeon really went to bat for our client, and I think that made a huge difference with the jury." The defendant also argued that Montgomery and his fellow firefighter bore responsibility for ensuring the gurney was secure before lifting the patient a position the jury ultimately rejected, though not entirely.The Verdict Breakdown The gross jury award was $8 million: $6 million to Buddy Montgomery and $2 million to his wife, Stacy Montgomery, for loss of consortium. The jury allocated 80 percent of fault to Medevac Medical Response and 20 percent to the plaintiff, reducing the net verdict to $6.4 million under Missouri's comparative fault rules. Special damages included: $478,000 in past medical expenses $2.4 million in lost wages and lost household services $1.7 million in future supervision and caregiving expenses The plaintiffs had demanded $5.5 million at mediation. The defendant made no offer. The jury returned a verdict that exceeded that demand by nearly $1 million on a net basis.A Case Built on Expert Testimony Both sides assembled substantial expert panels. The plaintiff's team called eight experts spanning EMS standards, orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, economics, vocational rehabilitation, psychiatry, and mental health therapy. The defense countered with four experts, including two neurologists who supported the coincidence theory on the hydrocephalus, and an EMS expert disputing the plaintiff's account of the gurney's role. The depth of expert testimony on both sides reflects how hard Medevac fought this case and how thoroughly the jury sided with the plaintiff on the core liability and causation questions. The plaintiff's legal team included Brett Burmeister and Kristi Burmeister of Burmeister Gilmore in Blue Springs, and Eric Playter of Playter Trial Lawyers in Rayton. The defense was represented by Stephen Fields and Emily Lavine of Brinker & Doyen in St. Louis, and Daniel Huff and Michelle Salandy of Huff Powell Bailey in Atlanta.What This Verdict Signals for EMS and Commercial Liability Cases Cases involving emergency medical service providers present a particular challenge for plaintiff attorneys. Defendants in this space often argue that on-scene personnel share responsibility for equipment failures, and that the chaotic nature of emergency response makes causation harder to establish. This verdict demonstrates that juries are willing to hold commercial EMS operators accountable when their equipment contributes to a responder's injury even when the defense raises a plausible alternative explanation for the most serious diagnosis. For Missouri plaintiff attorneys handling cases involving EMS companies, ambulance operators, or commercial service providers, this outcome is a useful data point on what a well-built expert case can achieve at trial.Track Missouri Verdicts on Major Verdict Results like this one are exactly what plaintiff attorneys across the country use to benchmark cases, evaluate damages strategies, and understand what Missouri juries are willing to award. Major Verdict is a free membership platform built for plaintiff personal injury lawyers. Members can showcase their own trial results and notable settlements on a public profile giving prospective clients a transparent look at their actual courtroom record. If you handle personal injury cases in Missouri, explore Major Verdict membership or browse plaintiff attorneys already posting their results on the platform. You can also explore Missouri personal injury resources and the latest verdict news from across the country.