News and Notable Verdicts

Plaintiff was the surviving spouse who claimed that her husband presented to his primary care physician for a periodic medication recheck, but had complaints of neck pain/upper chest pain that lasted about two minutes at a time that had been occurring over the last two weeks. His symptoms occurred at rest and were not associated with shortness of breath or diaphoresis. He also presented with a blood pressure reading of 148/88, which was moderately elevated. He had not had a history of hypertension. However, he did have a history of moderately elevated cholesterol and a family history of heart disease.

The physician’s assessment was atypical chest pain and wanted a blood pressure re-check at his office in one week. The patient did not return for the blood pressure check that, despite having also been sent a letter asking him to reschedule the appointment after he missed it. Plaintiff’s husband died in his sleep six weeks later. The autopsy showed significant occlusion of the left anterior descending artery and the medical examiner’s conclusion was cardiac arrhythmia due to myocardial ischemia caused by atherosclerosis including an acute plaque rupture of a coronary artery.

Plaintiff claimed the doctor was negligent in that he failed to make the correct diagnosis of unstable angina and the only reasonable medical treatment was to refer the patient to the emergency department or to a cardiologist for his acute coronary syndrome. Plaintiff claimed that, had he been treated emergently, he could have either had a coronary artery bypass graft or angioplasty which would have prevented the patient’s untimely death. The defendant disputed all of the claims and presented evidence that the patient died from a cardiac event unrelated to the prior neck pain.

The trial was the first to be held at the DoubleTree Hotel and Convention Center in Springfield, an alternate venue selected for Covid-related reasons. Plaintiff asked for just over $4.5 million in economic damages, lost income, and household contributions. After five days of trial, the jury deliberated for 74 minutes and returned a Defendant’s verdict.

Plaintiff alleged he hired Defendant Attorney to file and seek enforcement of four mechanic’s liens in Greene County and Christian County.  Plaintiff alleged that the actions to enforce the mechanic’s liens were dismissed due to Defendant Attorney’s inaction, and, thus, he was prevented from recovering the amounts he alleged he was entitled to under the mechanic’s liens.  As a result, Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant Attorney.  Plaintiff’s initial demand sought $718,929.22.

Representing the Defendant Attorney, Turner Reid attorneys disputed liability, arguing that Plaintiff could not prove causation, in that he could not prove that but for Defendant Attorney’s conduct in the underlying mechanic’s liens actions, Plaintiff would have been able to enforce the liens.  Specifically, Defendant argued that due to procedural missteps in Plaintiff’s own original attempts to obtain and file the mechanic’s liens, the liens were unenforceable, regardless of any action taken or not taken by Defendant.

Judgment was entered in favor of Defendant Attorney and against Plaintiff.  

Summary Judgment for Defendant

After Plaintiff was injured and incapacitated in an automobile accident, guardians and conservators were appointed to protect and oversee his interests and the interests of his estate.  Plaintiff alleged that the individuals appointed misappropriated funds from his estate and generally mismanaged his affairs while he was incapacitated.  After his capacity was restored, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Attorney, who represented the co-guardians and co-conservators in the related probate matters, was negligent in failing to investigate the qualifications of these individuals and failing to prevent them from appropriating funds from Plaintiff’s estate.  Plaintiff also alleged that Defendant Attorney represented both him and his guardians and conservators in the related probate matters. 

Representing the Defendant Attorney, Turner Reid attorneys disputed liability, arguing that Plaintiff could not prove that an attorney-client relationship existed between Plaintiff and Defendant Attorney.  Specifically, Defendant argued that neither his representation of Plaintiff in prior, unrelated matters, nor Plaintiff’s own belief that an attorney-client relationship existed in the relevant matters, was sufficient to make a submissible case for legal malpractice.  The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri agreed and entered summary judgment in favor of Defendant.

Broken leg, broken ribs, ruptured spleen, bruised kidney, and burns to feet and legs

Plaintiff was injured when he rode his 2003 Harley-Davidson Ultra Classic Electra Glide motorcycle off a curve. At the time of the wreck, Plaintiff was traveling on a curvy stretch of highway and was operating the motorcycle on cruise control at 55 mph.  Plaintiff testified that as he approached the curve on which he ran off the road and wrecked, he was having to lean an excessive amount.  He did not slow down or disengage the cruise control. 

Plaintiff alleged the motorcycle was defective because it was designed with two tie-rod points for the engine and drive train.  Plaintiff founded his defective design argument on a patent issued to a third party.  The trial court refused to admit evidence of the patent. Harley-Davidson presented evidence that the wreck was a result of operator error due to speed and Plaintiff’s failure to reduce speed in the course of the curve.

The jury returned a defense verdict.

Fracture to distal tibia, severed tendons to middle toes, damage to anterior tibial tendon, and scarring

Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri

Plaintiff was 9 years of age when she slipped and fell while standing on the door sill of a 1991 Ford Escort.  She was standing on the door sill to wash the roof of the vehicle.  At the time of trial, Plaintiff was 28 years old. Plaintiff’s last demand was for $250,000. Plaintiff alleged the Ford Escort was unreasonably dangerous because a part of the outboard seat track of the front passenger seat was a guard and unreasonably sharp.  Ford presented evidence that the outboard seat track of the Ford Escort was not unreasonably sharp and was not a guard.  The portion of the seat track causing the injury was a reinforcement for the seat track that was present to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. 

The trial lasted five days and the jury returned a defense verdict.

Plaintiff claimed that, while attending an estate sale at a residential property, she fell and suffered injuries due to a dangerous condition on the property. The alleged dangerous condition was the open end of a drainpipe and its adjoining depression in the concrete on the edge of the home’s driveway. Plaintiff’s injuries included a broken ankle with multiple fractures requiring two surgeries for repair and totaling nearly $50,000 in expenses, along with the probable need for a future ankle fusion or replacement. As a result of her injuries, Plaintiff brought suit against the homeowner and auction company.

Representing the Defendant auction company, Turner Reid attorneys Reinbold and Coffey disputed liability, arguing that Plaintiff could not identify the injury-causing mechanism, and that the auction company did not possess and control the premises at the time of Plaintiff’s fall. Further, both Defendants argued that this was simply an accident and that none of the parties were at fault.

In closing arguments, Plaintiff asked the jury for $429,000. After deliberating for two hours, the jury returned a verdict that assessed 0% fault to all parties.

Plaintiff underwent an elective laparoscopic abdominal hernia repair performed on an outpatient basis and was discharged that same day. That night, the Plaintiff began experiencing significant abdominal pain and eventually went to the hospital ER. Plaintiff’s vital signs were normal, she showed no signs of peritonitis, and she did not appear to be in distress or otherwise ill. The Plaintiff was then discharged early that morning. On post-op day three, the patient called the nurse on-call service and complained of constipation and significant abdominal pain. She was instructed to go to the ER. Upon arrival, the Plaintiff was found to be severely ill and septic. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with an acute abdomen and she was taken to surgery. During surgery, a small bowel perforation was discovered and resected.

Plaintiff claimed her surgeon was negligent in not requesting the Plaintiff to come in for an examination during the two or three days after surgery and that he should have otherwise done more to investigate the cause for Plaintiff’s pain. Plaintiffs claimed total medical bills of $481,725 as special damages in the case. During trial, Plaintiffs’ counsel never requested a specific amount as damages, but suggested in closing argument that an appropriate verdict might be “three times” the medical bills.

After a six-day trial, the jury returned verdicts in favor of all Defendants.

Plaintiff claimed that her mesothelioma was at least partly caused by shaking out her husband’s clothes after they were exposed to Ford brake dust from Ford Broncos at his U.S. Army job.

Ford’s position was that brake dust does not expose anyone to harmful particles and does not cause mesothelioma.

The trial lasted four weeks, and the jury returned a defense verdict for Ford.

Plaintiff sustained severe traumatic crush injuries to her lower right leg, among other injuries, after she was hit by an intoxicated driver. Surgery was performed on her right leg to stabilize her open tibia-fibula fracture. Plaintiff remained in the hospital and under the care of physicians with a variety of specialties. Nearly a month after the accident, some tissue taken from Plaintiff’s right lower leg was found to be colonized with MRSA. The physicians deemed this a surface colonization and elected to continue to treat the wound without IV antibiotics. Additional debridements were performed to remove necrosed tissue in an effort to save the leg and prevent infection, but ultimately, although best efforts were made to save her leg, her right lower leg was amputated.

Plaintiff sued six doctors, a physician’s assistant, the hospital, and the physicians’ employer, alleging that the amputation was the result of a MRSA infection and that Defendants were negligent in failing to prescribe antibiotics. Defendants maintained that although a tissue culture had grown MRSA a week or so prior to the amputation, there were no clinical signs of an infection that warranted IV antibiotics. Defendants and their experts also all testified that the progression of necrosis was caused by vascular insufficiency that resulted from her severe crush injury.

After eight days of trial, the jury returned a verdict for the Defendants, resulting in one of the largest defense verdicts of the year in Missouri, according to Missouri Lawyers Weekly.

Minor Plaintiff, through his father and next friend, alleged that the Suburban was defective and unreasonably dangerous because the retractor for his seat belt was located in close proximity to the jack assembly and the two made contact during the collision, causing the retractor to fail. Plaintiff alleged that this defect allowed him to hit his head on the B pillar, resulting in the traumatic brain injury.

General Motors presented evidence that the injury occurred because the Tacoma pickup invaded the space occupied by Plaintiff, striking him in the head with a glancing blow.

The trial lasted six days. The jury deliberated three hours before returning a 10-2 verdict in favor of General Motors.

Plaintiff suffered from a bulging (proptotic) eye as a result of an infection. He initially went to a local hospital where a CT scan was done, which diagnosed an abscess behind the eye. The Plaintiff was transferred to another hospital, where he was initially evaluated briefly by the emergency department physician and then seen by an ENT who attempted to drain the abscess unsuccessfully in the emergency department, but ultimately did drain it in the operating room. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff’s condition had progressed to the point that vision had been lost.

The Defendants disputed the Plaintiff’s allegations, and after eight days of trial the jury returned a verdict for all Defendants.

Plaintiff was the surviving spouse who claimed that his wife, after being prescribed a blood pressure medication by her primary care physician for the first time in June of 2005, suffered an adverse reaction to the drug and was taken to the emergency room. Plaintiff claimed that the decedent suffered a reaction to the medication. At the emergency department she was found to be in respiratory distress. Her condition deteriorated, and a short time later she coded and ultimately died. In addition to the claims against the primary care physician, the Plaintiff also claimed that the ER physician and staff were negligent in failing to timely secure an airway with an endotracheal tube.  The Defendants disputed all of the claims and presented evidence that the Plaintiff’s wife died from a cardiac event unrelated to the medication.

Plaintiff asked for $515,534.11 in economic damages, lost income, medical expenses, and household contributions.  After nine days of trial, the jury deliberated for 67 minutes and returned a unanimous Defendants’ verdict.

Plaintiff claimed that, while attending an open house for a new home built by the Defendants, she fell through an unfloored portion of the attic and sustained injuries. At some point after Plaintiff entered the attic, she turned to exit and stepped off of the maintenance pathway and into the blown insulation covering the unfloored portion of the attic. As a result, she fell through the floor into the kitchen below.

Defendants disputed liability and argued that the condition of the attic floor was open and obvious. Further, Defendants argued that this was simply an accident and that none of the parties were at fault.

Plaintiff asked the jury for $3 million.  After deliberating for four hours, the jury returned a defense verdict that assessed 0% fault to all parties.

Plaintiff presented to an ENT physician with a suspicious lump on his neck. A CT scan was ordered by the ENT, which was performed and read by a radiologist. The radiologist’s report noted several abnormal findings. Ultimately, it was discovered that the Plaintiff had squamous cell carcinoma, and he underwent a radical neck dissection, chemotherapy, and radiation. The surgery and treatment left the Plaintiff with very little functional use of his neck, left arm, and left shoulder. However, the Plaintiff is reportedly cancer free.

Plaintiff claimed that the radiologist who read and reported the CT scan was negligent in failing to note in his report that the findings were specifically concerning for or indicative of cancer.

The Defendants disputed the Plaintiff’s allegations and presented evidence that the abnormalities were appropriately reported to the ENT, which should have led to follow-up testing and the ultimate discovery of the cancer.

After five days of trial, the jury returned a verdict for the defense.

During a traffic stop, a Missouri State Highway Patrol car was struck by a truck pulling a trailer in a high-speed rear-end collision. The patrol car caught fire, killing one Plaintiff and badly burning another. One Plaintiff and his wife sued Ford. The other Plaintiff’s family reached a confidential settlement with Ford and was not involved in the retrial.

Plaintiffs alleged the Crown Victoria patrol car was defective because the fuel tank was located behind the rear axel. They argued this placement permitted the tank to be damaged in the high-speed, rear-end collision and, once damaged, the fuel tank allowed fuel to escape, resulting in the fire. Ford presented evidence that fires occurred in high-speed rear-end collisions in other manufacturers’ vehicles and highlighted Ford’s safety procedures in the design of the patrol car. The defense stressed the manner in which law enforcement used the Crown Victoria, including the unique risk of rear-end, high-speed collisions.  

The trial lasted four weeks, and the jury returned a defense verdict.

Plaintiffs were unbelted rear seat passengers in a 2000 Ford Focus that was involved in a one-vehicle rollover accident on I-55 near Pontiac, Illinois. Following a blowout of the right rear tire, the driver of the vehicle lost control, skidded sideways into the median, and rolled.  Both Plaintiffs were ejected during the rollover.  Plaintiffs asserted various strict liability and negligence claims alleging that the lower control arm from the right front wheel fractured while the car was on the roadway.  Ford presented evidence that the lower control arm fractured as a result of the rollover event.  

Ford also conducted and presented various tests to refute Plaintiffs’ theory that the lower control arm could bend and fracture due to a loose ball joint. Those tests simulated 100,000 miles of severe customer usage and showed that the lower control arm did not bend from forces imparted on it even with excessively loose ball joints.

The trial lasted four weeks. After two hours of deliberation, the jury returned unanimous verdicts for Ford on both of Plaintiffs’ claims of strict liability for design and manufacturing defects.