A San Diego jury rejected a $12 million demand from two plaintiffs who claimed substantial injuries during a low-speed collision. Wyeth E. Burrows and Steven D. Stutsman successfully argued that the chronology of events demonstrated the accident was not a substantial factor in the need for the ensuing medical treatments.
In a case of stipulated liability, the client’s truck, hauling a scissor lift, rear-ended a pickup truck occupied by two plumbers on their way to a job. The occupants of the pickup were transported by a family friend to the emergency room with complaints of back and neck pain. The Plaintiffs were discharged with negative findings on MRIs and x-rays, but both returned in the following days with worsening complaints of pain. Over the course of the next year and a half, both Plaintiffs underwent conservative care, including physical therapy and multiple epidural injections. Eventually, they underwent surgeries to address their worsening complaints of pain, which now included radiculopathy into their arms and legs.
The first Plaintiff underwent two surgeries, including cervical fusion and disc replacement. As he denied any history of neck or back injuries prior to the collision, the treating orthopedist attributed the need for the surgeries to the collision. This Plaintiff incurred $600,000 in recoverable medical bills over a 24-month course of care. Defendants conceded at trial that this Plaintiff was disabled as a result of the surgeries and is unable to resume his career as a plumber. He faces significant obstacles to future employment beyond sedentary jobs, due to his dependence on a cane. He presented evidence of past and future lost wages of $1.2 million.
After the second Plaintiff failed conservative treatment, he also underwent surgery. This Plaintiff also denied any history of prior back injuries, and the orthopedist attributed the need for surgery to the collision. The second Plaintiff incurred $385,000 in past medical bills and sought an additional $245,000 for a future surgery. He also sought $700,000 in lost earnings, both past and present, due to limits on his ability to continue working as the owner of his plumbing company.
During closing argument, Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Plaintiffs more than $12 million, including $3.1 million in economic losses.
Wyeth and Steve argued that Plaintiffs’ course of medical treatment documented inconsistent complaints of pain, including a two-month delay in the onset of radiculopathy. These inconsistencies undermined Plaintiffs’ injury claims. Wyeth and Steve went on to demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ surgeries were necessitated, if at all, by degenerative changes not attributable to the collision. They also argued that Plaintiffs’ medical bills were grossly inflated and presented evidence of a reasonable valuation of each item of care through expert testimony.
The defense presented by Wyeth and Steve was so compelling that the jury deliberated for only 3 hours before reaching their verdict, awarding the first Plaintiff $85,000 and the other Plaintiff just $54,000. The verdict reflected the exact value of the Plaintiffs’ damages as presented by Wyeth and Steve in this admitted liability case.
Even in cases of admitted liability, Burrows + Stutsman works tirelessly to identify a dynamic and tailored defense for every case in an effort to obtain the best results possible and protect our clients from paying more than is rightfully owed.
Wyeth E. Burrows commanded a Santa Monica courtroom as he secured a defense verdict on behalf of a trucking company and its driver in a personal injury action stemming from a rollover collision.
On an early January morning in 2018, Plaintiff was driving his pickup while transporting a trailer of cars over the grapevine, heading south on I-5 towards Los Angeles. Wyeth’s client was driving his tractor-trailer passing to the left of Plaintiff when, out of nowhere, the truck driver observed a large metal pipe directly ahead of him in his lane of travel. The truck driver braked and attempted to hold his lane, consistent with his training not to swerve for non-human road hazards. When the inevitable impact with the pipe occurred, the tractor-trailer jerked to the right, striking Plaintiff’s vehicle, which lost control and overturned. When police arrived on scene, the truck driver admitted he was travelling 3-5 mph over the speed limit. Police cited the truck driver as the cause of the incident. Plaintiff was transported from the scene to the hospital and began a course of treatment with orthopedic, pain management, and neurosurgery experts.
Further investigation into the incident revealed that the pipe in the middle of the freeway had fallen from another tractor-trailer shortly before the incident. Plaintiff eventually filed suit against both trucking companies and their drivers. During discovery the co-defendant’s employee admitted that the load he was transporting was difficult to secure due to various pipes of different sizes having been placed on a flatbed trailer by their customer. While en route, the employee failed to stop within 50 miles of starting his journey to re-check that his load was secure, a requirement under the law. When the pipe fell off the truck that morning, the employee was apparently unaware.
At trial, the co-defendant presented evidence from a witness that Wyeth’s client was traveling at least 10 mph over the speed limit, made an unsafe lane change causing the collision, and admitted fault at the scene. The co-defendant further argued that the pipe was not involved in the collision and that our truck driver’s errant lane change caused the collision. The evidence was used to demonstrate that our client’s excessive speed undermined his ability to stop in time and/or maneuver to an open lane on his left instead of hitting the pipe, which at least two other truck drivers had done before the collision.
Wyeth skillfully defended his client with an argument centered on the sudden emergency doctrine that, when faced with the sudden emergency of a pipe in the middle of a freeway, his client’s decision to strike the pipe instead of swerving was not negligent even if a different course of action (moving to the open lane on the left) would have been a safer decision. Wyeth also argued that the witness’ testimony about the truck driver driving well above the speed limit and hitting Plaintiff due to a negligent lane change was not in agreement with the physical evidence identified by the CHP and should not be believed.
Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award $3.1 million. The jury, despite being moved by Plaintiff’s closing argument, ultimately agreed with Wyeth and found the co-defendant and its driver solely responsible for the collision. Plaintiff was awarded $1.7M in damages against the co-defendant who dropped the pipe in the road. Wyeth’s client was completely absolved of any liability.
Prior to trial, Wyeth’s client issued a statutory offer for $130,000 to resolve Plaintiff’s claims, which offer was rejected, permitting Wyeth to seek recovery of his client’s costs from Plaintiff. Additionally, the co-defendant denied various requests for admission of liability in written discovery, subjecting the co-defendant to cost of proof sanctions. At the end of the day, Wyeth recovered over $200,000 in litigation costs and attorney’s fees on behalf of his client.
This trial was a testament to the dynamic and tailored approach to litigation which Burrows & Stutsman provides to all its clients. Even when there may be bad facts about the case, the attorneys at Burrows & Stutsman will work tirelessly to find a defense that can overcome those obstacles.
Following a week of jury deliberation after a three-week trial in Ventura County, Steven D. Stutsman obtained a defense verdict in favor of his client, a commercial property tenant, and avoiding the $1.2 million verdict that was ultimately entered against the co-defendant.
Steve represented an agriculture company which leased commercial property from which it operated a small agricultural supply store, including a large yard containing additional agricultural supplies. The lease of the property called for the landlord to be permitted to use a section in the far corner of the yard area to store dozens of large granite slabs leaned upon various A-frame supports. The lease language indicated that the granite was being stored at the landlord’s own risk.
Plaintiff, a 26-year-old man, entered the yard of the commercial property having driven passed the entrance to the retail store and past the signage warning of the dangers posed by the yard. Despite knowing he had traveled to an area of the yard where he was not supposed to be, Plaintiff exited his vehicle and began sifting through the large granite slabs owned by the landlord. Predictably, the slabs fall, landing on top of Plaintiff and crushing his leg. As a result, Plaintiff suffered grade one open tibia-fibula fractures to his right leg requiring surgery. Plaintiff further claimed that his injuries resulted in the development of complex regional pain syndrome, a debilitating nervous system injury which affected his right leg.
After nearly two years of litigation, Steve’s client issued a 998 to Plaintiff in the amount of $100,000, which Plaintiff refused and elected to proceed to trial. At trial, Plaintiff contended the granite slabs were stored improperly and were unreasonably dangerous, and that the defendants negligently failed to maintain their premises in a safe condition. He also argued that he wasn’t sifting through the granite, but merely placed his hand atop it when it fell. Both Defendants denied liability and disputed Plaintiff’s version of events surrounding the incident.
Steve strategically navigated through Plaintiffs claims, presenting expert testimony to show that the granite could not have fallen unless Plaintiff actively pulled it away from the A-frame supports upon which it was leaning. At the same time, Steve argued the contractual issues to the jury, explaining that, by virtue of the express language of the contract, any liability stemming from the display and storage of the granite slabs rested with the landlord defendant.
After a week of deliberations, the jury ultimately agreed that Steve’s client was free from fault and assigned Plaintiff 15% responsibility for his injuries, with the remaining 85% responsibility to the landlord defendant. The jury awarded Plaintiff $1.4 million against the landlord defendant, which was reduced to $1.2 million in light of the fault apportioned to Plaintiff.
Following the trial, Steve successfully recovered approximately $160,000 in litigation costs against Plaintiff, including almost $115,000 in expert witness fees as a result of Plaintiff’s rejection of the client’s 998.
The experience Burrows + Stutsman’s attorneys have defending commercial tenants means we understand the intricacies of commercial leases and are able to leverage the lease our clients sign against the property owners to ensure our clients obtain the benefits for which they bargained.
Cassandra R. Moser extricated her client from litigation for a severe personal injury claim at a popular San Diego concert venue, which her client was wrongly dragged into simply because they were one of several trucking companies that delivered equipment to the venue.
Plaintiff, who was part of the crew working the Tame Impala 2020 Concert Tour at Pechanga Arena, was offloading concert equipment from a tractor-trailer when the trailer was struck by a forklift. This impact caused one of the equipment carts on the trailer to roll into Plaintiff, crushing him between the cart and the trailer wall. Plaintiff claimed significant injuries as a result of this incident. The trailer where this incident occurred was one of more than 20 tractor-trailers that had delivered equipment for the concert.
Throughout discovery, Cassie adeptly questioned Plaintiff at deposition and through written discovery to establish that he lacked any actual evidence of her client’s involvement with the trailer, equipment, or forklift involved in the incident. Despite this lack of evidence, Plaintiff’s unscrupulous attorney would not dismiss Cassie’s client, solely in an effort to extort money from its insurance carrier.
Cassie took the matter before the court, arguing in her summary judgment motion that Plaintiff lacked any evidence with which to hold her client responsible for the incident. The Judge agreed, granting Cassie’s motion and giving a complete win to her client.
In the aftermath of this ruling, Cassie is currently pursuing recovery of her client’s litigation costs from Plaintiff.
Burrows & Stutsman congratulates Cassie on her first courtroom victory! With the legal acumen she has displayed thus far, we know there will be many more to follow.
After more than five years of complex litigation, Steven D. Stutsman successfully defended a commercial tenant and its construction manager against claims stemming from a severe injury to a construction worker during a tenant improvement project.
Plaintiff, a plumber, and his wife initially filed claims against the landlord, its property manager, and others after he was electrocuted by a negligently maintained sign at the property that was not a part of the lease signed by Steve’s client. Collectively, the Plaintiffs sought more than $10,000,000 in damages. After previously obtaining Summary Judgment against the Plaintiffs’ claims on a Privette motion and obtaining declaratory relief against the clients’ general contractor on the issue of a duty to defend, the only remaining claims were those asserted by the landlord and property manager, including contractual indemnity, breach of contract, and duty to defend claims.
Continuing his string of victories in this matter, Steve obtained summary judgment against the property manager. In the end the Court also granted summary adjudication in favor of Steve’s clients as to seven of the eight causes of action asserted by the landlord. The clients and their carriers were ecstatic with the results.
Cases like this underscore the relentlessness with which Burrows & Stutsman represents its clients. We fight hard to provide the best defense possible for our clients, no matter how complex their case may be.
Steven D. Stutsman aggressively pursued a contractual indemnity claim on behalf of his client, a commercial property owner, against its landscaping contractor. His tenacious efforts to enforce his client’s contractual rights ultimately protected his client from a $1 million payment to the injured Plaintiff.
Plaintiff asserted an injury claim when she slipped and fell in the lobby of a commercial property owned by Steve’s client. Plaintiff had just entered the building after traversing an exterior walkway which had become wet due to running sprinklers that were not properly adjusted to keep the water off the walkway. Plaintiff filed suit against both Steve’s client and the landscaping contractor. Steve, in turn, filed a Cross-Complaint for express indemnity against the landscaping contractor based on language within the contract which required the landscaping contractor to indemnify Steve’s client for all claims arising from their work, unless solely caused by Steve’s client. The Defendants ultimately reached a $1,000,000 settlement with the Plaintiff and proceeded to a bench trial on the indemnity claim to determine apportionment and responsibility for the settlement payment.
Despite the clear language of the contract, the landscaping contractor argued to the court that it was only required to indemnify Steve’s client up to its proportionate share of liability. The landscaping contractor called several witnesses to testify as to the intent of the parties at the time the contract was executed. Steve argued that the language of the contract was clear and unambiguous, and the testimony offered by the landscaping subcontractor should be excluded. The court agreed, excluding the proffered testimony and finding that Steve’s client was entitled to complete indemnity from the landscaping contractor. As a result of the court’s ruling, the landscaping contractor was required to pay Plaintiff’s settlement pursuant to the terms agreed to by the parties.
Indemnity language is a key feature to nearly every service or commercial property contract. At Burrows + Stutsman, we are well versed in the complex laws regarding contractual indemnity rights. It is our detailed understanding of the law which enables us to ensure our clients obtain the full indemnity for which they have contracted.
In an extremely contentious business dispute, Steven D. Stutsman successfully defended two brothers and their small fashion company in case involving dueling breach of contract claims against their landlord and business partner. As trial commenced, the landlord and business partner caved under the pressure of cross-examination and the parties reached a six-figure settlement in favor of Steve’s clients.
Steve’s clients leased commercial space in the garment district of Los Angeles, which they used to operate their small fashion company. Eventually, an agreement was struck wherein the landlord provided Steve’s clients with $900,000. The landlord claimed this amount was a loan made with a promise to repay at an interest rate of 20%. Steve’s clients maintained that the payment was part of a joint business venture in which the landlord was to provide $2 million in capital, which would be used to acquire merchandise which the venture would sell for a profit, to be split evenly between Steve’s clients and their landlord. The landlord’s failure to provide the full amount promised caused significant economic losses to Steve’s clients. On top of that, the landlord sold much of the merchandise acquired by the joint venture, but never split the profits as agreed by the parties. Steve’s clients also alleged that the proper rented from the landlord had fallen into a state of disrepair, which caused damage to their own merchandise. The parties filed competing lawsuits against one another.
There was no love lost between the parties as litigation persisted for nearly five years, during which Steve’s clients were physically assaulted by the landlord, who also routinely spewed racially and religiously charged epithets at Steve’s clients. Behavior which continued into trial. Following testimony by one of Steve’s clients, the landlord was called to the stand as an adverse witness. During his testimony, the jury learned of the racially and religiously charged epithets and the landlord’s forging of signatures on business and court documents. The landlord’s counsel asked the court for an extended recess and a settlement was ultimately reached with the landlord agreeing to pay Steve’s client’s $750,000 in damages.
Business litigation can, at times, be very personal and very messy. The attorneys at Burrows + Stutsman guide our clients through this tense time of their business lives to ensure their case is presented to the jury in a more composed, articulate, and strategic manner than their opponents’. The results of this approach speak for themselves.
