Posted by Courtroom View Network on Wed, Aug 25, 2010 @ 10:15 AM
Marcinkowski v. Golden Nugget involves a multi-story parking garage at the Golden Nugget casino in Las Vegas. Two vehicles broke through the guard rails and plunged to the ground, two- and four-stories below, killing or fatally injuring the vehicle occupants.
In 1987, the Golden Nugget completed construction of a six-story self-parking garage. Seventeen years later, on January 22, 2004, George and Maureen Yago's Toyota Camry broke through the 4th story guardrail and plunged to the ground, killing both occupants. According to plaintiff attorney Robert Halparyan, of The Gomez Law Firm, witnesses would testify that the Yagos' vehicle was driving slowly, below the posted 10 mph speed limit in the garage.
After investigating the incident, the Golden Nugget determined that the railings were adequate and complied with the 1985 building code, and an outside engineering firm, Lachsa Engineering, concurred after conducting a preliminary investigation.
Mr. Halparyan told the jury that The Golden Nugget was legally obligated by the City of Las Vegas to ensure a complete, independent engineering investigation, with a final report, which was was not done. Nor were any load or force calculations done, nor was any flex testing done.
Nine months later, on October 25, 2004, Ed Marcinkowski drove a rented Chevy Malibu through the guard rail on the second floor of the same parking garage, and plunged into the same alley, where he was severely and fatally injured. Again, said Mr. Halparyan, witnesses would testify that Mr. Halparyan was driving slowly.
"A property owner has a duty to make sure their property is safe..." Mr. Halparyan told the jury. "How could it happen twice?...Even after this second, similar incident, the Golden Nugget said that the guardrails were adequate."
Mr. Hamparyan told the jury that highly qualified NASA expert engineers would testify that the guard rails were dangerous, that the decedents' vehicles were traveling less than the posted speed limit when they struck the barriers, that the guard rails could not withstand even a one mile per hour collision, and that no structural engineering inspections had been done during 17 years of continuous use.
For the defense, Edward Lanigar reminded the jury that the first accident occurred 16 years and eight months after the city's certificate of occupancy had been issued. "There was no accident, no issue related to that parking structure, as far as that guard rail, in 16 years and eight months, of thousands and thousands and thousands of cars using that parking structure to park in."
"Immediately after the accident, Golden Nugget personnel inspected the garage itself. What they did was they went floor to floor. They looked at all the guard rail areas, or anything else where there might be something loose, might be something broken, and they came up with a negative. There was nothing that was broken or loose..."
"It uses the term 'preliminary' investigation," said Mr. Lanigar, but "there were no further requests for the Golden Nugget to have the engineering firm do anything further related to the investigation."
Further, Mr. Marcinkowski was familiar with the garage, and, said Mr. Lanigar, a witness driving immediately behind Mr. Marcinkowski saw him suddenly accelerate over a concrete wheel stop, into and through the garage wall. " Mr. Lanigar concluded his opening statement by suggesting that what the Golden Nugget did between the Yago accident and the Marcinkowski accident was reasonable.
Watch CVN's live webcast of Yago and Marcinkowski v. Toyota and Golden Nugget.
Posted by Courtroom View Network on Tue, May 18, 2010 @ 03:00 PM
After briefly deliberating today, the jury in CVN's live webcast of Barkman v. Adams awarded $19,441 in damages to Laura Barkman, and $1,335,592 in damages to Randall Hobbs, including $800K for lost future wages and $382K for future pain and suffering. Hobbs' brain was damaged as a result of a collision between the motorcycle he was riding and an SUV. Hobbs was not wearing a helmet.
Posted by Courtroom View Network on Tue, May 18, 2010 @ 10:21 AM
The Barkman v. Adams trial webcast by CVN involved the damages resulting from a vehicle collision involving an SUV and a motorcycle, which ejected the motorcycle drivers into the street. The parties agreed prior to trial that the defendant SUV driver was 100% responsible for the accident. However, the parties did not agree as to the damages.
Both motorcycle passengers were injured, but one had fully recovered, whereas the other suffered permanent coup contrecoup frontal lobe brain injuries that caused a significant change in personality. The plaintiff argue that, because he lost his ability to sequence, organize, and plan, he would never again be a construction supervisor. He had also lost his sense of smell, and, said the plaintiff, would live with anguish, depression, and fear.
The plaintiff requested damages of over $3.5M
The defense argued that the injuries would have been much less severe if the plaintiffs had been wearing helmets. Further, said the defense, the plaintiff's work life had not been shortened by ten years, and his ability to multi-task was not lost.
CVN webcast the Barkman v Adams trial live.
Posted by Shelly Albaum on Thu, Apr 08, 2010 @ 02:28 PM
Unsafe injection practices may have caused hundreds of Hepatitis infections in Nevada. The first lawsuit,
Chanin v. Desert Shadow Endoscopy, goes to trial next week, and the plaintiff is blaming the pharmaceutical companies that manufactured (Teva) and supplied (Baxter) the anesthetic Propofol, the improper administration of which may have spread hepatitis C. (Propofol was also the same sedative that was given to singer Michael Jackson.)
According to the plaintiff, the drug was provided in "jumbo-sized" vials that were defective because they encouraged multi-dosing, rather than using a single vial for each patient. According to Baxter, the drugs were clearly labeled for single-use.
Posted by Shelly Albaum on Fri, Mar 19, 2010 @ 10:02 AM
Moreno v. Ford, one of many pending cases involving defective Firestone tires on Ford Explorers, resulted in an $18M+ jury verdict for the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs alleged that a tire retailer, American Tire Depot, had negligently installed a 12 year-old defective spare tire on the plaintiff's vehicle. American Tire Depot conceded that they do not check every tire for recalls, but said that they would not have rotated the spare into service, so someone else must have done it.
The jury awarded just over $5M, $3.5M, and $0.5M, to three family members injured in the crash, and $9M in wrongful death damages to the parents of an 11 year-old child killed in the crash.
The jury assigned 85% fault to American Tire Depot, 15% fault to Bridgestone/Firestone, and 0% to Ford and to the driver of the vehicle that overturned.
CVN webcast this Firestone Tire trial live, and it is available for replay on-demand.
Posted by Shelly Albaum on Sat, Feb 06, 2010 @ 12:22 PM
The plaintiff allegedly bit a Wendy's cheeseburger containing a metal object -- possibly a nail or a staple -- which caused mouth injuries, including dislocation of the temporomandibular joints (TMJ), requiring bilateral surgery.
The defendant claimed that there was no metal piece in a Wendy's hamburger, and if there was one, it did not cause a TMJ dislocation. A laboratory later found saliva on the metal, but not starch or blood. Also, the defendant asserted that the symptoms of TMJ dysfunction, such as jaw pain, were not reported until months later.
The jury found for the defense, determining that the Wendy's franchisee was not negligent, and did not sell a defective hamburger.
CVN is webcasting the Gonzales v. Wendy's trial on-demand.