Recent Cases

T.P. v. American Commercial Barge Line, LLC

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff alleged that on March 19, 2005, while attempting to check tow as a lead-man he slipped and fell severely injuring his right knee which required surgery. Moreover, Plaintiff claimed that he would require additional medical treatment for his injuries and Defendant failed to maintenance and cure him. Plaintiff brought his action pursuant to the provisions of Title 46 U.S.C., Section 688, et seq., commonly called the Jones Act and General Maritime Laws of the United States.

Plaintiff’s case was filed in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri pursuant to R.S.Mo. § 347.069 prior to tort reform occurring on August 25, 2005. Thereafter, the Court by consent of the parties transferred to the case to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri.

Plaintiff alleged several theories of negligence against the Defendant. First, Plaintiff alleged was negligent in maintaining equipment and the vessel. Secondly, Plaintiff alleged his employer had provided an unseaworthy vessel as barges to which said vessel was towing lacked adequate non-skid and/or non-slip paint thus creating a dangerous condition. Therefore, in reliance of Seas Shipping Co., Inc. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 94 (1946), Plaintiff alleged that his employers’ duty to provide a seaworthy ship was absolute and non-delegable.

Finally, Plaintiff alleged cumulative trauma to his knee as a result of working on steel surfaces for eleven (11) years for the Defendant. Defendant moved for summary judgment prior to trial stating Plaintiff’s claims should be barred under maritime law by the Primary Duty Rule. As such his employer claimed that Plaintiff’s failure to place non-skid paint on the deck of the vessel caused his injuries.

The Court denied Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and held that the Jones Act is a broad remedial statute that must be liberally construed to further its humanitarian goal of holding barge companies responsible for the dangers to which their employees are exposed. Likewise, other Missouri courts have held that only a very small amount of evidence is required to establish liability in a Jones Act case. Under Missouri law the evidence needed to establish liability in a Jones Act case much less than in an ordinary negligence action. See also, Duncan v. American Commercial Barge Line, LLC, 166 S.W.3d 78 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004).

Subsequent to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment being denied by the Court the parties reached a confidential settlement agreement.

N/a. v. Confidential

$645,000.00 TRASH TRUCK SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff alleged that in July of 2005, while traveling on MO HWY 100 (Manchester Road) in St. Louis County, Missouri a trash truck being operated by the Defendant’s employee switched lanes improperly crashing into his car.

Defendant’s employee and driver of the trash truck denied crashing into Plaintiff’s car. Thus, Defendant denied liability relating to the crash based upon the truck driver’s testimony.

Plaintiff alleged injuries to his back and neck as a result of the crash with the truck. Plaintiff was forced to undergo surgery to correct injuries to his cervical discs which he claimed resulted from the crash. Prior to trial, Plaintiff’s treating physician testified that he would need additional medical every treatment yearly for the remainder of his life. Therefore, Plaintiff sought compensation for past medical treatment received and for medical treatment he would need in the future as a result of the truck crash.

Plaintiff’s counsel’s investigation revealed witnesses to the truck crash that had not been listed on the police report. The witnesses testified that the truck improperly switched lanes and crashed into Plaintiff’s car. While Defendant originally denied Plaintiff’s claims the parties reached a settlement on the morning of trial.

J.W. v. B.S

POLICY LIMITS SETTLEMENT

On February 7, 2008, Plaintiff was hit by a car driven by the Defendant while walking along the side of the roadway near Sikeston, Missouri. Plaintiff suffered serious injuries to his left arm and leg which required hospitalization and numerous surgical procedures. Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant negligently failed to use the high-beam headlights of his car in order to see Plaintiff; failed to keep careful look out; failed to take corrective actions to prevent crashing into Plaintiff with his car; and crashed into Plaintiff because he was traveling on the shoulder of the roadway.

Plaintiff alleged the cost of outstanding medical bills and lost wages because of Defendant’s aforementioned negligence. The parties reached a settlement for policy limits prior to trial.

M.R. v. C.S.

CAR CRASH POLICY LIMITS SETTLEMENT

On October 15, 2007, Plaintiff was headed Westbound on a roadway in near Kirkwood, Missouri with her children. Plaintiff alleged she crashed into Defendant’s car at an intersection because they failed to yield the right-of-way at a green light. Plaintiff alleged injuries to her head, neck, and back including a closed head injury. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleged that because of Defendant’s negligence she was forced to miss a semester of college and would have to undergo a surgical procedure to correct herniated disc in her neck in the future. Prior to trial, the Defendant’s auto insurance carrier agreed to pay their policy limits for Plaintiff’s alleged damages.

N.J. v. R.F.

MOTORCYCLE POLICY LIMITS SETTLEMENT

On May 20, 2007, Plaintiff was a passenger on a motorcycle owned and operated by the Defendant. Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was negligent when he ran off the roadway near O’Fallon, Missouri. In addition, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant was driving the motorcycle in an intoxicated condition at the time of the crash and thus is negligent per se under Missouri law.

Plaintiff alleged serious injuries to her knee, arm, shoulder, legs, and back which required her to be hospitalized and undergo several operations. Plaintiff also alleged serious and permanent scars to various parts of her body and lost wages as a result of the alleged negligent operation of the motorcycle. Prior to trial the parties reached a settlement for the Defendant’s applicable insurance policy limits.

V.S. v. C.B.

POLICY LIMITS SETTLEMENT

On December 3, 2007, Plaintiff was rear-ended by the Defendant near Springfield, Missouri. As a result of the crash the Plaintiff’s car was totaled and she suffered serious injuries to her neck. Thereafter, Plaintiff underwent a surgical fusion to the vertebra in her neck. The Defendant’s insurance company attempted to avoid liability by alleging the reason for the crash was because of ice accumulation on the roadway and not Defendant’s negligence. Subsequent to the insurance company’s denial, Plaintiff filed a law suit alleging that Defendant failed to keep proper distance from Plaintiff’s car; drove a rate of speed excessive for the conditions; was inattentive; and failed to take corrective actions to avoid crashing into Plaintiff’s car.

Defendant’s insurance company agree to pay its policy limits days after Plaintiff filed an action in the Circuit Court of Green County, Missouri.

D.E. et. al v. Confidential

Plaintiffs were performing contracting duties at a chemical plant when a chemical tank over pressurized releasing hazardous chemicals, including bromide vapor. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was negligent in storing and recycling butanol acid and adding various compounds which resulted in the chemical tank over pressurizing and exploding.

Defendant failed to activate either the emergency or evacuation alarms even though both where present at the facility. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant’s actions prior and subsequent to the chemical release violated numerous OSHA regulations and thus Defendant was negligent per se for their injuries. These violations included the following:

• 29 CFR § 1910.38 in not providing proper exit routes and emergency action plans in the plant
• 29 CFR § 1910.1200 in not providing the required hazard communication to employees, agents and contractor in the plant
• 29 CFR § 1917.30(a) in not providing a compliant emergency action plan in the plant
• 29 CFR § 1918.100 in not providing a complaint emergence action plan in the plant
• 29 CFR § 1910.36 in not meeting the requirements of an exit routes in plant
• 29 CFR § 1910.119 in not meeting the reducing the consequences of a toxic chemical release.

Both Plaintiffs claimed they sustained serious injuries to their lungs and respiratory systems including reactive airways disorder syndrome (“RADS”) as a result of the chemical release. Only weeks prior to trial the parties reached a total settlement of $4,750,000.00 for both Plaintiffs.

Click to read more personal injury case results.