Stanley Hilton filed a $15 million lawsuit against San Francisco International Airport, saying the nonstop noise from jet engines caused such a rift in the relationship with his wife that she took the couple’s triplets and left.

“The marriage went downhill almost immediately upon moving to this location,” Hilton said, “The house became extremely uncomfortable with the smog and the noise, and it caused enormous problems that led to the divorce.”

The 60-year-old compares the noise to bombs dropping in a war zone. Not only does Hilton blame the noise from SFO for his divorce, he also says it caused a nosedive in his health and professional career.

Among the many defendants named in Hilton’s suit are the real estate agents who sold the couple their $1.4 million home in 2003. It’s not usually part of the SFO flight path but, Hilton claims, the reverse propulsion of jets bounces off the hilly surroundings and creates a reverberating, intolerable boom.

Hilton is representing himself. It would seem he has the skillset — he’s a former civil litigation attorney with a law degree from Duke University and was an active member of the California bar for the past 30 years. But, he was deemed ineligible to practice law in August.

He’s also no stranger to silly lawsuits. In August, he sued a San Mateo building owner for $20 million after he got stuck in an elevator. He claimed the experience left him with a phobia for riding in elevators.

SFO told the paper they wouldn’t comment on the suit.

Read More:

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Blame-the-Planes-Man-Claims-SFO-Caused-Divorce-70371557.html

In a case where a hotel investment firm sued an insurance company for allegedly not paying an insurance claim fast enough after Hurricane Charley, attorneys for the parties seemed at odds with each other from the get-go. When it came down to where to depose a witness, the attorneys would do no better. Not being able to select a location between themselves, the court was asked to intervene. U.S. District Judge Gregory A. Presnell was not amused. After chastising the attorneys for not being able to agree on even the most simplest of things, Judge Presnell issued his written ruling:

Holding:
“[T]he Court will fashion a new form of alternative dispute resolution, to wit: at 4:00 P.M. on Friday, June 30, 2006, counsel shall convene at a neutral site agreeable to both parties. If counsel cannot agree on a neutral site, they shall meet on the front steps of the [Courthouse]. Each lawyer shall be entitled to be accompanied by one paralegal who shall act as an attendant and witness. At that time and location, counsel shall engage in one (1) game of ‘rock, paper, scissors.’ The winner of this engagement shall be entitled to select the location for the 30(b)(6) deposition to be held somewhere in Hillsborough County during the period July 11-12, 2006.”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

AVISTA MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a Avista Plex, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

______________________________________

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to designate location of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition (Doc. 105). Upon consideration of the Motion – the latest in a series of Gordian knots that the parties have been unable to untangle without enlisting the assistance of the federal courts – it is

ORDERED that said Motion is DENIED. Instead, the Court will fashion a new form of alternative dispute resolution, to wit: at 4:00 P.M. on Friday, June 30, 2006, counsel shall convene at a neutral site agreeable to both parties. If counsel cannot agree on a neutral site, they shall meet on the front steps of the Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse, 801 North Florida Ave., Tampa, Florida 33602. Each lawyer shall be entitled to be accompanied by one paralegal who shall act as an attendant and witness. At that time and location, counsel shall engage in one (1) game of “rock, paper, scissors.” The winner of this engagement shall be entitled to select the location for the 30(b)(6) deposition to be held somewhere in Hillsborough County during the period July 11-12, 2006. If either party disputes the outcome of this engagement, an appeal may be filed and a hearing will be held at 8:30 A.M. on Friday, July 7, 2006 before the undersigned in Courtroom 3, George C. Young United States Courthouse and Federal Building, 80 North Hughey Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on June 6, 2006.

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

Of note, the two lawyers met on June 7, 2006, a day later, and agreed to the location for the deposition, making the game unnecessary. For fear of being held in contempt of court, defense counsel filed a motion asking the judge to call the game off. Plaintiff’s counsel joined in the motion. The judge vacated his previous ruling with the following, “With civility restored (at least for now), it is ordered that the motion is granted.”

Read More: http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/07/magazines/fortune/judgerps_fortune/index.htm

In February 1992 Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car when she was severely burned by McDonalds’ coffee. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds. After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee, Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing over 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds’ knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds’ quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the “holding temperature” of its coffee.

Plaintiffs’ expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck’s spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a “warning” but a “reminder” since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds’ coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 — or three times compensatory damages — even though the judge called McDonalds’ conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting. Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.

—–

certain details excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. © 1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of California

—–
Read More: The ‘Lectric Law Library | The Net’s Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.

Recently in Los Angeles, a 52 year old traffic officer sued Victoria’s Secret for damage to her eye caused by a new thong. A metal clip came off unexpectedly off the thong hitting her in the eye. The case was filed on June 9, 2008 and Officer Macrida Patterson is seeking unspecified damages.

Patterson, a Los Angeles traffic cop stated in the lawsuit that the offending garment is a blue bit of fabric with a rhinestone heart forming part of the waistband, connected to the fabric by metal links.

“I was putting on my underwear from Victoria’s Secret, and the metal popped into my eye, It happened really quickly. I was in excruciating pain. I screamed. That’s what happened.”

The incident happened in May 2007 when Patterson was changing in the locker room at work after her shift and drove home despite considerable pain in her eye. The next morning her eye was so painful that she had to go to the hospital.

“Macrida suffered three actual cuts to her cornea,” said her attorney, Jason Buccat “It left some severe damage, to the point where in order for it to heal, she had to take some topical steroid. The details here will definitely show there is a defective product, both in its design and its manufacture.”

Referring to a photo of the thong: “You can see the obvious defects in that piece with respect to its defective design. First, Victoria’s Secret chose to put a decorative piece with sharp points and metal gear on its underwear itself. Second, when they placed it on that piece, it was off to the side toward the outer part of the leg, and that point is a natural stress point for any individual that’s putting on any kind of underwear.”

“This case is definitely about protecting the consumer from defective products,” he repeated. “In terms of money, that’s not what we really want here. We want to make Macrida fully redressed for her grievous injury. She’s missed work. She’s gone through a lot of suffering as well. We want to make Macrida Patterson whole again.”

Patterson claims that she called Victoria’s Secret when she got home the day of the injury to complain. The company asked her to send it the thong, but Buccat advised her not to.

“We were actually happy for them to view the thong, but what they wanted to do and we weren’t comfortable with, we were not going to relinquish that item to them altogether,” he told Vieira. “They wanted us to ship it to them so that they could do their own analysis … this a piece of evidence. That is not something we’re going to do.”

Representatives of Victoria’s Secret stated in an e-mail, “It would be really inappropriate for us to comment at this point since we have not even been served with that lawsuit yet.”

Read more at MSNBC News: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25258522/#ixzz0nmtZaD7W

On March 19, 2009, an Arizona jury awarded a verdict of $11 million to the widow of a 36-year-old man with traumatic brain injury who died after ingesting foreign objects while in the care of Liberty Manor Residency, a Phoenix assisted living facility. The verdict included $2 million for the decedent, $5 million for the wife and $4 million in punitive damages. It is the largest verdict ever awarded against an assisted living facility in the United States.

Earl Scherrer, the deceased, suffered a severe traumatic brain injury as a result of a car accident in 1996. He lapsed into a coma and was not expected to recover. Despite doctors’ assessment that Mr. Scherrer’s condition was permanent, Lydia Scherrer refused to disconnect her husband’s life support. Earl Scherrer remained in a coma for 16 months before he began to slowly emerge.

With his wife’s nurturing and support, he slowly started to speak and Mrs. Scherrer worked with her husband day after day, using first-and second-grade reading and math textbooks and other elementary learning tools to stimulate his brain function and coax him back to his full potential. Lydia Scherrer devoted many hours per week to her husband’s recovery, but she also had to work and was forced to turn to assisted living and residential facilities to provide the 24-hour care her husband needed.

On April 7, 2006, Mrs. Scherrer placed her husband in Liberty Manor Residency, a facility that purported to provide 24-hour supervision of its residents. One month later – on May 7, 2006 – she received a call saying her husband had been vomiting. Mrs. Scherrer rushed to Liberty Manor, brought her husband home and gave him a bath. Within moments, he began vomiting black matter and died in her arms.

Later autopsy results showed plastic bags, unopened catsup packets, candy wrappers and paper towels in Earl Scherrer’s stomach and small intestines. The medical examiner determined these foreign objects were significant contributing factors to his death. The autopsy read in part, “hypertensive heart disease due to mechanical obstruction of the GI [gastrointestinal tract] from the foreign objects.”

Lydia Scherrer, represented by Craig Knapp, of the Scottsdale law firm Knapp and Roberts, brought claims against Liberty Manor for abuse and neglect, wrongful death and punitive damages.

At trial, it came to light that Liberty Manor made numerous false entries in its charts with respect to Earl Scherrer’s care, including notations of care on days when Mrs. Scherrer had checked him out of the facility. Liberty Manor was also unable to produce Mr. Scherrer’s alleged caregiver, an employee named Raul.

“Lydia Scherrer did not walk away from her husband, in life or in death, her hope is that this verdict will force the assisted living facility industry to set and meet higher standards of care for their residents, resulting in enhanced protections for the defenseless individuals trusted to the care of others.”

- Attorney, Craig Knapp.

Read More:
Arizona Jury Awards $11 Million in Phoenix Assisted Living Lawsuit

California Assisted Living Lawsuit

Oregon Assisted Living Class Action Lawsuit

Philiadelphia Wrongful Death Assisted Living Lawsuit

In September, 2007, former Phoenix police Officer Mark Wilcox and his wife sued the Phoenix Police Department and Sergeant Kathy Johnson for Defamation and Violation of Civil Rights in the handling of an October 2004 incident involving a juvenile suspect.

At that time Officer Wilcox had chased down a juvenile suspect on the streets of Phoenix and claimed that the suspect kicked him and escaped, only to be nabbed by another cop. Wilcox charged the juvenile with aggravated assault for the alleged kick. At trial, however, neither Wilcox nor the other officer showed, and the case was dismissed.

During an internal affairs investigation conducted by the Phoenix PD, a third officer reported that Wilcox demonstrated how he had taken the juvenile’s shoe and made an imprint on his own uniform to bolster the aggravated assault charge. The investigation preliminarily concluded that Officer Wilcox had violated several departmental rules and regulations, including engaging “in unprofessional conduct by committing acts that constitute the elements of felony offenses.”

Wilcox was fired November 28, 2006. The officer appealed and PLEA President Mark Spencer served as Wilcox’s union representative.

In March 2007, the city’s Civil Service Board reduced his punishment to a 120-hour suspension, finding only that the department had proven (by a preponderance of the evidence) only that Wilcox had no good excuse for having missed the juvenile’s court hearing.

In a 17 Page Ruling, A U.S. District Court Judge, Mary Murguia, has tossed out the case and dismissed each of the Wilcox’s claims as legally insufficient.

Wilcox returned to the job after his reinstatement, but resigned in the summer of 2007 and moved to Missouri.

Read More:
The New Times Feathered Bird Take on this Lawsuit

The State of Arizona is accusing a major payday loan company in a Phoenix court of engaging in deceptive loan practices. State prosecutors claim the the company, Quik Cash, was illegally collecting default judgments by filing collections lawsuits in courts far from where debtors live or took out the loans.

Quik Cash and its parent company, QC Holdings Inc. of Overland Park, Kan., are the named defendants in a lawsuit filed Friday in Pima County Superior Court in Tucson by the Attorney General’s Office. The lawsuit contends that Quik Cash promised lenders in the past three years that it would follow Arizona law in it’s collections and legal actions against customers.

The company, however, has filed hundreds of collections suits in Pima County against nonresidents even though state law requires that the small-claims suits to be filed either where a defendant lives or took out a loan. This reduced collections costs for the company while making it easier for the company to obtain default judgments and wage garnishments because it’s more difficult for defendants who live elsewhere to contest the suits.

“For rural customers, this is a difficult and onerous burden,” Quik Cash Lawsuit Brief.

Quik Cash even sued out of state Nevada customers in Pima County, which is located in southern Arizona, although the customers obtained their loans some 300 miles away in Bullhead City, near the Nevada border in Arizona’s Mohave County.

The company’s practices set up “a veritable assembly line of default judgments” that make a mockery of the Arizona court system.

-Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard

QC Holdings spokesman Tom Linafelt responded to the suit saying that Quik Cash tries to comply with Arizona law and was unaware of the “administrative issue.” He said the company will cooperate with the state and was investigating the matter internally.

Arizona Legal Action Against Payday Loan Company

A judge in Tucson on Friday granted the attorney general’s request for a preliminary injunction barring the company from filing lawsuits in the wrong courts or pressing cases already filed in the wrong courts. The states’ lawsuit seeks up to $5 million in restitution, asks the court to set aside hundreds of court judgments against Arizona payday loan borrowers and seeks to stop the company from doing business in Arizona.

QC Holdings said on its Web site that it operates 563 branches in 24 state, lending nearly $1.4 billion to customers. It’s website is currently down.

Read More:

News 5 Arizona Seeks to Shut Down Arizona Payday Loan Company

A Phoenix, Arizona Attorney returned a Jury Verdict award of $3.3 Million to an Arizona Woman in a Toxic Mold Lawsuit.

An Arizona jury awarded a woman who is now permanently disabled due to exposure to toxic mold $3.3 million after her Phoenix Attorney filed suit. The dangers of mold is well established in court and other multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements have been reached.

Arizona personal injury

The injuries sustained by Robin Minium, a 47 year old Arizona woman, were the result of toxic mold exposure. Minium worked out of her home in an upscale Scottsdale apartment as a project manager for American Express. She moved into the apartment in 2000 and by 2002 she had become very ill – neither she nor her doctors knew why. One of her neighbors then told her about mold infestation in the complex and her doctor confirmed that her symptoms were consistent with mold exposure. She moved out immediately but the damage to had already been done. She now suffers from a neuro-cognitive disorder that affects her short term memory and can no longer work because of it.

Arizona Trial Lawyer

Minium then sued the apartment complex for failing to maintain the premises in a condition fit for human occupation. Minium’s Arizona personal injury attorney convinced the jury that the mold in her apartment was toxic and responsible for her injuries. The jury agreed and returned a verdict which awarded Minium $3.3 million.

According to the Wikipedia entry on Mold, mold effects human health in many ways, including:

• Symptoms such as runny nose, itchy eyes and skin rashes and allergic fungal sinusitus
• Asthma
• Attention deficit
• Depression
• Diarrhea
• Dizziness
• Headaches
• Infections
• Infertility
• Irritation of the mucous membranes of the eyes and respiratory system
• Kidney problems
• Nausea
• Tremors

Nearly 10,000 toxic mold cases are currently filed in the United States – and several injured victims have received multi-million verdicts and settlements.

Multi-million dolla Mold related verdicts and settlements

Numerous multi-million verdicts and settlements regarding toxic mold exposure have been reached, here are some:

Verdicts:

$4.75M. A jury awarded a Virginia family $4.75 million in February 2009 when their contractor’s negligence caused toxic mold to spread throughout their new home and left nearly the entire family with irreversible medical injuries.

$2.7M. A jury awarded a California family $2.7 million in July 2008 when the apartment they were living in was covered with toxic mold and caused them severe injuries.

$32M. A jury awarded a Texas family $32 million several years ago when their insurance company failed to correct a water leak which caused toxic mold in their home and they suffered severe injuries.

Settlements. Notable settlements in toxic mold cases in the past few years include two California lawsuits, one which settled for $22 million and the other for $3 million, a $4 million Texas settlement and a $1 million Delaware settlement.

If you’ve been injured due to mold, contact a Saigh Law experienced Phoenix personal injury attorney to discuss your situation and evaluate your legal options.

Read More:


Non-Profit Public Mold Assistance Website

The Official CDC Website with Mold Statistics

Arizona Mold Lawsuit Awards 3.3 Million

]]> http://www.saighlaw.com/?feed=rss2&p=194 2 http://www.saighlaw.com/?p=180 http://www.saighlaw.com/?p=180#comments Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:06:33 +0000 fredsaigh http://www.saighlaw.com/?p=180


courtesy of dailyclipart.net

When a 16 year old Connecticut high school student fell asleep in class his math teacher smacked her palm down on his desk to wake him up and this he says caused substantial hearing loss. His parents are now planning to sue Danbury High School, the Connecticut Board of Education and the city of Danbury on his behalf after their son experienced an almost complete loss of hearing.

Vinicios Robacher’s father, Soel Robacher, claims that his son’s left ear was resting on his desk on Dec. 4 when math teacher Melissa Nadeau slammed her hand down so hard that his eardrum burst. The boy has since been through extensive medical treatments with ear, nose and throat specialists and could require surgery to fully rectify the damage, according to court documents. Since then some of his hearing has been restored, although further treatment was recommended by specialists.

Alan Barry of Alan Barry & Associates, the lawyer representing the Robachers, said a complaint has been filed with the city and that a claim is being investigated and a suit would follow. Barry said he wants to know Nadeau’s complete teaching history and is prepared to fight to gain access to her personnel records.

“We don’t have all the facts and we don’t have are a complete analysis of the medical condition. There is no question, however, about what happened and the damage to this child’s hearing.”
-Attorney for Sleeping Student

Barry said the boy’s ear hurt instantly after Nadeau hit his desk.

“He woke up and immediately felt pain in his ear,” said the Attorney “I think he was so taken aback that he didn’t say anything at the time.”

The next day his parents took him to the hospital after he complained of hearing loss and they discovered bloody fluids on his pillow. The case has drawn its share of ridicule and bad publicity, and the Robachers’ lawyer said students have been teasing the student at school. The parents, though, are undeterred in their aim to pursue the matter legally and considering transferring their son to a private school, their Attorney said in press conferences.

“There has been a certain amount of negative backlash for making this claim,” Barry said. “I fully expected it and I really understand that. What’s a little bit disturbing is the fact that nobody’s saying if you fall asleep in class, it’s OK for your hearing to be damaged.”

Barry filed the documents with the Danbury City Clerk on Feb. 25.

He said he is getting no compensation for representing the Robachers and will get paid only if a lawsuit is filed and won. He’ll get one-third of the amount of a settlement or damages.

Read More:
Fox News “Sleepy Student Claims Teacher’s Wake-Up Slam Caused Hearing Loss”
Topix “Danbury Faces Lawsuit for Waking Sleeping Student”

]]> http://www.saighlaw.com/?feed=rss2&p=180 1 http://www.saighlaw.com/?p=176 http://www.saighlaw.com/?p=176#comments Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:40:44 +0000 fredsaigh http://www.saighlaw.com/?p=176

Stephen Chang, a securities trader, filed a lawsuit against the Hot Lap Dance Club near Madison Square Garden in Manhattan claiming an injury that happened when a stripper performing a lap dance on him smacked him in the face with her shoe. In court papers, he claims he was at alone and paid for a lap dance when the accident occurred. According to the lawsuit, the dancer swung around and the heel of her shoe hit him in the eye, causing “serious injuries.”

Chang was at the club around 1 a.m. on Nov. 2, 2007 when the injury occurred, according to the suit filed in Manhattan’s state Supreme Court. His lawyer, Stephan Persoff, said Chang is married and in his early 30s. He declined to give the name of the brokerage firm where Chang works.

A manager of the Hot Lap Dance Club said he was unaware of the accident or the lawsuit and the club’s lawyer, Stephen Ateshoglou, refused to comment on the incident. The club describes its space at 38th Street and Ninth Avenue as the “Playboy Mansion of Manhattan party lofts.” Admission is $50.00 plus a one-time club membership fee of $10.00 for first time club goers. Lap dances cost around $40.00. The club claims that they “hand pick” performers that have “killer bodies” and are aged between 18 and 29.

Read more at:
US Law “Negligent Lap Dance”
Microsoft Network Off Beat News “Man Sues Strip Club”

]]> http://www.saighlaw.com/?feed=rss2&p=176 0