This site and all blogs on this site are intended for informational purposes only. The purpose of this site is not intended to create an attorney client relationship or not a substitution for legal advise. Always seek legal advise from a credible lawyer.
As personal injury lawyers at Penney and Associates we will give a reasonable free initial consultation on your injury case, whether a car crash or any other type of injury.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Motorcycle Passenger Knocked off Bike, Run Over
Larry Eslinger and Kevin Elder of Penney and Associates recently finished a trial in Orange County where the Jury awarded $775,361.00. Defendant's offer was $200,000 and plaintiff's demand was $650,000.00. In sum, on September 23, 2005, plaintiff was a passenger on a motorcycle driven by her late fiancee. Defendant was stopped on the northbound shoulder of the highway, in the same direction plaintiff was traveling. The defendant driver was operating a 10-ton flatbed truck loaded with construction materials. He was admittedly lost and should have been traveling in the opposite direction. The defendant made an illegal U-turn across the double yellow lines directly in the path of plaintiff's motorcycle.
Plaintiff and the operator of the motorcycle had to lay the bike down to avoid impact. After plaintiff came off the bike, she began sliding toward the truck. The truck then ran over the edge of her right hip causing a fracture of the right pelvis. She also suffered from some pain in her wrist and elbow. Plaintiff made a good recovery.
The jury awarded plaintiff $59,563.00 past medical, $15,798.00 in past wage loss and the rest in general damages. Defense's motion for new trial was denied.
Plaintiff and the operator of the motorcycle had to lay the bike down to avoid impact. After plaintiff came off the bike, she began sliding toward the truck. The truck then ran over the edge of her right hip causing a fracture of the right pelvis. She also suffered from some pain in her wrist and elbow. Plaintiff made a good recovery.
The jury awarded plaintiff $59,563.00 past medical, $15,798.00 in past wage loss and the rest in general damages. Defense's motion for new trial was denied.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Construction Accident Leads to Wrongful Death
WORKER DIES IN CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT
Vasquez v. Conoco Phillips Company; Central District Federal Court docket #06CV07828
Vasquez was working at ConocoPhillips’s Los Angeles Refinery. HMT company contracted with the defendant to install a new concrete and steel bottom floor in a tank on the premises. The tank was built by defendant Chicago Bridge & Iron in 1966. The tank had a floating roof that raised or lowered depending upon the amount of product loaded into the tank. During the maintenance, the floating roof was approximately 8 feet from the floor.
The morning of April 10, 2006 the floating roof collapsed onto several workers, including Mr. Vasquez. Vasquez was the most severely injured in the accident sustaining an amputation of the right arm among other things. He died shortly after arriving at the hospital.
The plaintiff (Vasquez’s wife and daughter) contended that the various defendants were negligent for failing to secure the roof.
The defendants argued that plaintiff and his company were responsible for the collapse. They argued that they did not secure the floating roof while working under it as prescribed in the safety handbook. Defendants also claimed that the plaintiff and his employer were aggressively jacking up the roof and support legs causing the ultimate rotation and collapse of the roof. Defendants argued that the support legs were bent at an angle due to the excessive and uneven jacking of the roof.
Just prior to trial all parties settled. The defendants agreed to pay a total of $6,100,000.00 to plaintiff and various other amounts to the other injured parties.
Attorney’s Penney and Associates handles all types of construction injuries and/or injuries sustained on the job in California. See www.penneyandassociates.com
Vasquez v. Conoco Phillips Company; Central District Federal Court docket #06CV07828
Vasquez was working at ConocoPhillips’s Los Angeles Refinery. HMT company contracted with the defendant to install a new concrete and steel bottom floor in a tank on the premises. The tank was built by defendant Chicago Bridge & Iron in 1966. The tank had a floating roof that raised or lowered depending upon the amount of product loaded into the tank. During the maintenance, the floating roof was approximately 8 feet from the floor.
The morning of April 10, 2006 the floating roof collapsed onto several workers, including Mr. Vasquez. Vasquez was the most severely injured in the accident sustaining an amputation of the right arm among other things. He died shortly after arriving at the hospital.
The plaintiff (Vasquez’s wife and daughter) contended that the various defendants were negligent for failing to secure the roof.
The defendants argued that plaintiff and his company were responsible for the collapse. They argued that they did not secure the floating roof while working under it as prescribed in the safety handbook. Defendants also claimed that the plaintiff and his employer were aggressively jacking up the roof and support legs causing the ultimate rotation and collapse of the roof. Defendants argued that the support legs were bent at an angle due to the excessive and uneven jacking of the roof.
Just prior to trial all parties settled. The defendants agreed to pay a total of $6,100,000.00 to plaintiff and various other amounts to the other injured parties.
Attorney’s Penney and Associates handles all types of construction injuries and/or injuries sustained on the job in California. See www.penneyandassociates.com
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Disclaimer
DISCLAIMER: here is the legal “mumbojumbo” that we need to say.
Any and all written material contained herein from Penney and Associates or its attorneys is for informational purposes and is not intended to be construed as legal advise. Any mention of cases or the results of such cases is not intended to advise concerning the value of similar cases. Nothing herein is intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Always consult with an attorney.
Any and all written material contained herein from Penney and Associates or its attorneys is for informational purposes and is not intended to be construed as legal advise. Any mention of cases or the results of such cases is not intended to advise concerning the value of similar cases. Nothing herein is intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Always consult with an attorney.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
